Claremont McKenna College
Contact Person:
Jerome W. Garris, Vice President for Special Projects and
Senior Associate Dean of the Faculty
Claremont McKenna College
Claremont, California 91711
Phone: (909) 621-8195
Fax: (909) 607-1212
The following people graciously gave of their time and expertise in the development and completion of
the Capacity and Preparatory Review in 2008-2009 at Claremont McKenna College, Claremont,
Pamela B. Gann, President and Chief Executive Officer
Robin J. Aspinall, Vice President for Business and
Administration & Treasurer
Matthew G. Bibbens '92, Vice President for
Administration and Planning, Registered In-House
Counsel, and Secretary of the College
Lisa Forman Cody, Associate Dean of the Faculty and
Associate Professor of History
Georgette R. DeVeres, Associate Vice President of
Admission and Financial Aid
John P. Faranda '79, Vice President of Alumni
Jerome W. Garris, Vice President for Special Projects
and Senior Associate Dean of the Faculty
Gregory Hess, Vice President and Dean of the Faculty;
Russell S. Bock Chair of Public Economics and
Jefferson Huang, Vice President for Student Affairs
and Dean of Students
Cynthia A. Humes, Chief Technology Officer,
Executive Director of Information Technology Services,
and Associate Professor of Religious Studies
William R. Lowery, Vice President for Development
and External Relations
June R. McCartney, Executive Assistant to the
President and Associate Secretary of the College
Richard L. Rodner, Associate Vice President for Public
Stephen M. Siegel '87, Associate Vice President for
Richard C. Vos, Vice President and Dean of Admission
and Financial Aid
Richard T. Watkins, Associate Vice President for
Jerome W. Garris, Chair; Vice President for Special Projects and Senior Associate Dean of the Faculty
Anthony Fucaloro, Professor of Chemistry and
George C.S. Benson Professor of Public Affairs
Diane Halpern, Professor of Psychology
Eric Helland, Professor of Economics
Cynthia A. Humes, Chief Technology Officer and
Associate Professor of Religious Studies
Joke Johnson, Assistant Dean of the Faculty
Elizabeth Morgan, Registrar and Director of
Institutional Research
James B. Pinter-Lucke, Associate Professor of
Ronald Riggio, Henry R. Kravis Professor of
Leadership and Organizational Psychology and Director
of the Kravis Leadership Institute
Colleen Wynn, Assistant Director of Institutional
Justin Young, Director of the Writing Center and
Visiting Assistant Professor of Literature
Lisa Forman Cody, Chair; Associate Professor of History and Associate Dean of the Faculty
Candace Adelberg, Claremont McKenna College
Asuman Aksoy, Professor of Mathematics
Mark Blitz, Fletcher Jones Professor of Political
Newton Copp, Newton H. Copp, Sidney J. Weinberg,
Jr. Chair in Natural Sciences and Professor of Biology
Mark Angelo Costanzo, Professor of Psychology
Gary Gilbert, Associate Professor of Religious Studies
Jefferson Huang, Vice President for Student Affairs
and Dean of Students
Joke Johnson, Assistant Dean of the Faculty
Manfred W. Keil, Associate Professor of Economics
Robert Kirkland, LTC, Professor of Military Science
and Adjunct Assistant Professor of History
Elizabeth Morgan, Registrar and Director of
Institutional Research
Michael D. O’Neill, Associate Professor of
Arthur L. Rosenbaum, Associate Professor of East
Asian History
Marie-Denise Shelton, Professor of French
Janet Kiholm Smith, Von Tobel Professor of
Economics and Dean of the Robert Day School of
Economics and Finance
Michael L. Sutton, Professor of Physical Education
and Director of Athletics
Nicholas O. Warner, Professor of Literature
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................1
Preparation of the Capacity and Preparatory Review.........................................................................3
New Developments since Submitting our Institutional Proposal.........................................................4
Changed Financial Circumstances .................................................................................................4
Robert A. Day Gift...........................................................................................................................5
Freshman Humanities Seminar Program .......................................................................................5
Joint Science Department...............................................................................................................5
Globalization ...................................................................................................................................6
New Consortial Programs ...............................................................................................................6
Departmental and Institute Reorganizations...................................................................................7
Expanded Facilities.........................................................................................................................7
Capital Campaign ...........................................................................................................................7
Core Commitment to Institutional Capacity ........................................................................................7
Core Commitment to Educational Effectiveness ................................................................................8
Essay on Standard 1: .............................................................................................................................9
Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives ...............................................9
Essay on Standard 2: ...........................................................................................................................11
Achieving Educational Objectives through Core Functions ..............................................................11
Essay on Standard 3: ...........................................................................................................................15
Engaging the Environment and Ensuring Sustainability ...................................................................15
Essay on Standard 4: ...........................................................................................................................17
Creating an Organization Committed to Learning and Improvement ...............................................17
Essay on Theme 1: Assessing Student Learning .................................................................................19
Essay on Theme 2: Planning for Growth ..............................................................................................27
Context for the Issue of Enrollment Growth at CMC.........................................................................27
The Current Status of the Growth Issue at CMC ..............................................................................28
Planning for Future Growth...............................................................................................................31
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................32
Preparedness for the Educational Effectiveness Review (EER) ......................................................32
Work Plan and Milestones for the Educational Effectiveness Review (EER) ...................................34
Appendix I: Required Data Elements......................................................................................................1
Appendix II: Stipulated Policies ..............................................................................................................2
Appendix III: Additional Documentation..................................................................................................3
Appendix IV: Response to Previous WASC Accreditation......................................................................6
The Capacity and Preparatory Review is designed to enable the Western Association of Schools and
Colleges (WASC) Commission to determine whether an institution fulfills the Core Commitment to
Institutional Capacity: The institution functions with clear purposes, high levels of I. institutional
integrity, fiscal stability, and appropriate organizational structures to fulfill its purposes.” In keeping
with the Commission’s goal of a focused accreditation process that permits adaptation and
responsiveness to institutional context and priorities, Claremont McKenna College elected to conduct
its Capacity and Preparatory Review within the framework of two broad thematic areas that clearly
emerged as major priorities and received consistently high ratings of importance across all the different
constituencies of the College community: Planning For Growth and Assessing Student Learning.
Claremont McKenna College (CMC) is a highly selective, independent, coeducational, residential,
undergraduate liberal arts college. Its mission, within the mutually supportive framework of The
Claremont Colleges, is to educate its students for thoughtful and productive lives and responsible
leadership in business, government, and the professions, and to support faculty and student scholarship
that contribute to intellectual vitality and the understanding of public policy issues. The College
pursues this mission by providing a liberal arts education that emphasizes economics and political
science, a professoriat that is dedicated to effective undergraduate teaching, a close student-teacher
relationship that fosters critical inquiry, an active residential and intellectual environment that
promotes responsible citizenship, and a program of research institutes and scholarly support that makes
possible a faculty of teacher-scholars.
Previously known as Claremont Men’s College, Claremont McKenna College has been coeducational
since 1976. The College currently enrolls 1,212 students, employs 280 staff members and has a
faculty of 150. The College occupies about fifty acres of land and has eighteen residence halls,
including four garden apartment buildings, and fifteen academic, student services and administrative
buildings. The College also owns more than seventy houses adjacent to the campus, which are rented
primarily to faculty and staff. A children’s school (two years through third grade) is supported on
campus. As a member of The Claremont Colleges, the College was founded intentionally with, and
still maintains, its specialized mission within a liberal arts environment to educate its students for
leadership in business, the professions, and public affairs, coupling the theoretical with the applied.
Despite our focus, the College has sufficient resources to offer 31 undergraduate majors in addition to
contributing to many other majors offered via the other Claremont Colleges. Pursuant to its mission,
the largest programs are Economics and Government. Beginning in 2009–2010, the College will offer
a masters degree graduate program in Financial Economics through its new Robert Day School of
Economics and Finance.
The College has long been one of the most selective institutions in the nation and has been consistently
rated among the top 20 liberal arts colleges nationally by U.S. News and World Reports. For Fall
2009, we have admitted just 16% of our 4,277 applicants. The yield rate for the 2008 freshman class
was 40%. With combined SAT scores of 1400, 84% of our freshmen were in the top ten percent of
their graduating class, and 54% were drawn from outside California. For the last several years the
College’s overall five-year graduation rate has consistently remained above 90%. We are also able to
enroll a highly diverse group of students; in 2008–2009, 37% percent of our students were from
minority groups (61 Asian-Americans, 37 Hispanics, 18 African Americans, and 3 Native Americans).
The faculty is composed of highly productive teacher-scholars and has grown substantially in recent
years to 133.7 FTE with a student-faculty ratio of 8:1. The current percentage of tenured faculty is
1 of 34
51%. In 2008–2009, we employed 36 full-time non-tenure track faculty and adjuncts (see CMC
Common Data Set).
As indicated in our Initial Proposal, the Claremont University Consortium (CUC) is a unique model of
higher education in America. The Consortium consists of five adjacent undergraduate colleges, two
graduate institutions, and a central organization, Claremont University Consortium, that provides
services shared by all students, faculty, and staff. The Claremont Colleges are nationally and
internationally renowned for academic excellence. The Consortium includes Pomona College, the
founding institution (established in 1887), Claremont Graduate University (1925), Scripps College
(1926), Claremont McKenna College (1946), Harvey Mudd College (1955), Pitzer College (1963), and
the Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Science (1997). The Colleges not only share a library
system, bookstore, counseling center and health facilities, among others, but also offer joint academic
programs and cross-registration. Currently the Consortium reports that The Claremont Colleges enroll
over 7,000 students, boast 775 faculty members, and maintain over 1,960 staff. More than 2,000
courses per semester are available to students in Claremont through our common registration system.
Within the context of the Consortium, CMC operates a stellar joint intercollegiate athletics program for
both men and women on behalf of CMC, Harvey Mudd, and Scripps Colleges. (Pomona and Pitzer
form their own joint intercollegiate program.) Our Washington, D.C. semester-long program is open to
all undergraduates of The Claremont Colleges and combines academic courses and internships. CMC
also houses International Place, a resource for orientation, advising, support, and programming for
international students from all of The Consortium’s institutions. Currently the College is also the lead
college for the Joint Science Department, which is a three college department jointly supporting CMC,
Pitzer, and Scripps Colleges.
CMC operates ten research institutes established to engage faculty and students in research
efforts related primarily but not exclusively to public policy issues. The institutes assist the
College in attracting and retaining superior faculty, as well as extending student academic
experiences beyond the classroom through applied research projects involving faculty. Indeed,
nearly one-half of our graduates benefit directly or indirectly from the research programs of the
research institutes. Experience has shown our students capable of engaging in substantive
research; our Institutes provide a hands-on opportunity for students to define problems, analyze
data, articulate findings, and gain new skills and techniques (Doc 05c-8. Board of Trustees
Research Institute Survey Report, 2005) CMC also strongly encourages all students, regardless
of their major or financial situation, to extend their education beyond Claremont through
extensive study abroad options and through college-funded summer internships in the United
States and abroad. Currently about one-half of each graduating class participates in at least one
semester of off-campus study (Doc 03c. CMC Strategic Indicators Report 2008) Indeed, a
larger percentage of our students study abroad than at Stanford, Swarthmore, or Williams.
We believe this reaccreditation process can be leveraged to deepen campus engagement with
important issues facing the College. We have engaged the four major themes of “Defining
Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives,” “Achieving Educational
Objectives through Core Functions,” “Developing and Applying Resources and Organizational
Structures to Ensure Sustainability,” and “Creating an Organization Committed to Learning and
Improvement.” In addition, we are devoting considerable attention to our two specific themes
approved by the Faculty and the Board of Trustees in the Spring of 2007: “Planning For
Growth” and “Assessing Student Learning in the Areas of General Education Skills and in the
2 of 34
Preparation of the Capacity and Preparatory Review
The WASC Steering Committee began the College’s accreditation planning and coordinating efforts in
spring 2006. The WASC Steering Committee appointed two subcommittees to work on drafts of the
capacity and preparatory review and the educational effectiveness review sections of our Proposal.
Although we originally intended to have these two subcommittees continue their efforts after the
completion of the Initial Proposal, it became clear that the combined WASC Steering Committee was
better suited to develop together the Capacity and Preparatory Report (CPR). Nearly all of the
Steering Committee’s efforts have been focused on advancing the College’s assessment and evaluation
program since the submission of our Proposal to the Commission. The rationale for this effort was the
result of our self-study process used to produce the College’s Proposal; our self-study of the College’s
compliance with the CFRs indicated that there were a dozen CFRs that needed varying degrees of
attention. In nearly every case, these were related to educational effectiveness shortfalls.
Simultaneously, the College community was working on plans for future enrollment growth that would
affect all areas of the College’s operations. Most of this growth planning has been undertaken at the
Senior Staff and Board of Trustees level with Matthew Bibbens, Vice President for Planning, leading
the effort.
After approval of the Proposal, the Steering Committee has made periodic presentations on
institutional progress to faculty, staff, and trustees. Members of the Steering Committee also provided
on-going assistance to each academic department as they established the learning goals and SLOs for
their discipline during the last year. In cooperation with the Curriculum Committee, which includes the
chair or dean of each department, several key academic administrators, and students, the Steering
Committee prepared the general education goals and SLOs. (Doc 06b-5 & 4. Curriculum Committee
Agenda and Minutes, 12-11-08; 01–29-09) The Faculty adopted the general education goals and
Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) on May 12, 2009 (Doc 06a-1. Faculty Meeting Agenda and
Minutes, 05-12-09), and the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board and the Board of Trustees
approved them on May 15, 2009 and May 16, 2009 respectively (Doc 06e-1. Academic Affairs
Committee Agenda and Minutes, 05-15-09; Doc 06d-1. Board of Trustees Agenda and (draft) Minutes
05-16-09 with General Education Assessment Goals and Learning Outcomes 05-14-09) The Steering
Committee is now reviewing the initial results of the assessment of the general education goals and
Having worked for more than three years on assessment and evaluation, our first Theme, the members
of the Steering Committee have gained considerable experience dealing with assessment and
evaluation and with the challenges of moving the institution forward in terms of measuring student
learning. Every academic department has developed student learning goals, to be included in the
2009–2010 CMC Catalog, and a majority have decided on relevant SLOs. Although much more work
needs to be done, two programs – the Master in Finance and Literature – have already determined
which courses map onto which SLOs. (Doc 05d-1. Literature Department Learning Goals 02-09;
CMC: MA in Finance Application 09-08-08, Program Description and Evaluation)
The Steering Committee has also taken a leadership role in helping with the development of general
education goals, pertinent SLOs, and multiple means of assessing student achievement. The college
now uses the use of the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA), which complements our long-standing
participation in the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), the national UCLA HERI Senior
Survey, and completion our own Student Life Survey, and the CMC alumni survey. (Doc 04d. CLA
Fall 2008 Interim Report, Claremont McKenna College; Doc 04e. NSSE 2008 Mean and Frequency
Reports; Doc 04c. 2006, 2007, 2008 Senior Survey (UCLA-HERI); Doc 04a. CMC Student Life Survey
Results 2006, 2007; Doc 4f. CMC Alumni Survey Summary 02-16-09) Our commitment to
3 of 34
participation in national studies progress underscores our steps to create a workable assessment and
evaluation program for the College’s educational purposes.
Since the submission of our Proposal in 2007, the College has invested considerable time and effort to
prepare for planned institutional growth, the subject of our second institutional theme. The College has
hired an architectural firm to assist with the development of a campus master plan of buildings and
grounds for an eventual enrollment of 1,400 students. A table top Master Planning exercise for faculty,
staff, and students was held in the Spring of 2009. To provide for future expansion of sports and other
facilities, the Board of Trustees recently authorized negotiations to purchase additional land (40 acres)
on the east side of the current campus. The College has also formed an ad hoc committee to conduct a
planning exercise for institutional growth, and has developed a timeline that is expected to lead to
enrollment growth recommendations to the Board of Trustees in early Fall 2009. (Doc 06d-2. CMC
Board of Trustees Academic Programming Initiatives, 03-13-09; Doc 06d-21. 2002 Strategic Plan
Tracking Report, 06-18-09; Doc 06d-22. 2009–2010 Strategic Planning Framework, 06-18-09) All of
these infrastructure decisions and projects are leading the College carefully toward institutional growth
within our means and capacity.
Our progress to date on both of our central themes, Assessing Student Learning, and Planning for
Growth, is a clear indication that we have both the capacity and the institutional will to move ahead
toward successful completion of our eventual educational effectiveness review. As we argued in our
Proposal, there is a powerful and useful nexus in the Standards’ emphasis on institutional capacity,
educational effectiveness, and student learning outcomes. Indeed, as we noted, “it would be nearly
impossible for us to undertake a master planning effort for institutional growth without examining our
capacity for growth and its effects on student learning outcomes.”
We have adopted a two-pronged framework for planning that will permit us to examine upcoming
issues, including the next phase of possible growth, admission and financial aid programs, academic
and curricular issues, financial planning, and campus master planning. To complement our campus
master planning effort, we are also engaging in a more focused effort to amend our current Strategic
Plan to meet changing circumstances. (Doc 03a-1. CMC Strategic Plan: A Vision for 2002–2012, 0315-2002) We expect a preliminary update to our Strategic Plan to be completed in early 2010. We will
utilize existing Faculty, College, and Board of Trustees committees to carry out both planning
processes with the Board’s Executive Committee serving as the Steering Committee. With the
assistance of our master planning architectural consultants, we believe our current data collection
capabilities will be sufficient to assess the quality of our operations and organization as we undergo the
planning process. The metrics covered in our annual Strategic Indicators Report provide a steady
stream of valuable data to support the planning process now getting under way. (Doc 03c. CMC
Strategic Indicators Report 2008)
New Developments since Submitting our Institutional Proposal
Revisiting our Strategic Plan and focusing on planned institutional growth will allow us to address
some major changes that have occurred since our submission of the Institutional Proposal for
Reaffirmation of Accreditation in 2007.
Changed Financial Circumstances
Like many other institutions, particularly those with large endowments, the College has recently
experienced some serious financial setbacks. Our endowment, which was estimated at $528 million on
June 30, 2008, has since declined in value as a result of the financial down turn by between 20–25%
4 of 34
(fiscal year 2008–2009). Since our endowment accounts for about one-third of our operating budget,
this reduction in value has a significant effect on our available operating revenue. Additionally, gifts
to current operations are also down significantly from previous years. Although the financial base of
the College remains solid, the net effect is that the College has been forced to reduce its operating
expenses in order to bring them into balance with our reduced revenues. This turn of events has
resulted in several very recent policy decisions: the initiation of voluntary early retirement options for
faculty and staff; a moratorium on salary increases for the 2009–2010 fiscal year; reduced hiring plans
for staff and faculty; no increases in operating budgets for the next fiscal year; and the reduction of
eleven staff positions.
Robert A. Day Gift
A positive development for CMC is receiving a $200 million gift from alumnus and Trustee Robert A.
Day, the largest gift ever granted to a liberal arts college. This gift has led to the creation of the new
Robert Day School of Economics and Finance to house the economics, accounting and finance
programs. Further, it has spurred the establishment of a graduate program in financial economics and
the highly competitive Robert Day Scholars Program for qualified seniors from all of The Claremont
Colleges. Selected scholars receive financial support toward tuition together with unique extracurricular opportunities of workshops and other events to enhance their leadership qualities while they
pursue an intensive program of liberal arts courses. To gain accreditation for the graduate program, the
College submitted a substantive change proposal to WASC in the Fall of 2008 requesting approval of
the Master of Arts degree in financial economics. The Commission approved the program in April
2009 and the first students will enter the one-year MA in Finance program this Fall. We anticipate
enrolling between 15 and 20 students in the inaugural class. (Doc 02a. WASC Substantive Change
Proposal, RDA MA in Finance 2008-2011, 09-16-08; Doc 02b. WASC Substantive Change Committee
Action Report for RDS MA in Finance 12-04-08; Doc 02c. WASC Structural Change Committee
Approval, 03-19-09, RDS MA Program in Finance)
Freshman Humanities Seminar Program
Additional curricular changes have occurred since the submission of our Proposal in the summer of
2007. After extensive discussion of the freshman general education curriculum, the Faculty decided to
eliminate Questions of Civilization, a course required for all new students in their first year with a
common set of readings. Instead, the College developed a new Freshman Humanities Seminar (FHS)
Program in Fall 2008. Freshman Humanities Seminar courses aim to give first-year students an
introduction to some of the questions fundamental to individuals in their relationship to society and the
world. FHS courses also aim to provide students with the analytical skills necessary to engage
critically with issues, texts, and arguments and to express their ideas clearly, both orally and in writing.
As such, these classes will be intensely participatory and writing-intensive. They are meant to allow
for a variety of opinions based on reasoned argumentation and grounded in the reading and
interpretation of texts. The FHS program is also designed to encourage tenured and tenure-track
faculty to offer first-year courses rooted in their discipline but exploring questions fundamental to
individuals in their relationships to society and the world. (Doc 06a-9. Faculty Meeting Agenda and
Minutes, 02-08-08)
Joint Science Department
Our Joint Science Department, a three college department jointly supporting CMC, Pitzer, and Scripps
Colleges, has undergone significant changes. The organization of the Joint Science curriculum was
partially modified with the support of a major grant from the National Science Foundation for the
development of a new integrated introductory science course linking year-long introductory biology,
5 of 34
chemistry, and physics courses into a common two-year course. (Doc 06a-12. Faculty Meeting Agenda
and Minutes, 03-06-07) A new operating agreement among the three Joint Science Colleges setting out
new responsibilities for the joint administration of the program is being further refined in the Fall of
2009. A third major change was the creation of a new Dean of Science position and the hiring of
Professor David Hansen from Amherst College as the new Dean of the Joint Science program
beginning in 2009–2010.
During 2007–2008, at the President’s initiative, the College started a major self-study of our progress
in achieving the globalization objectives set out in our 2002 Strategic Plan, which had concluded, “The
sweeping global changes now underway are creating an ever more interdependent world. Everything
from communications, financial investments, and commerce to politics, science, and technology must
now be viewed from an international as well as a domestic perspective. In response to these challenges,
we must ensure that CMC students receive the knowledge and skills that they will need in an
increasingly global environment.” (Doc 03a-1. CMC Strategic Plan: A Vision for 2002–2012, 03-1502) As part of the 2007–2008 self-study, a series of ad hoc faculty discussion groups met to explore
new initiatives in the international arena, and faculty were polled concerning levels of expertise,
interest, and current course offerings. One of the proposed initiatives was that the College should
direct its international efforts toward East Asia, South Asia and the Middle East. In addition, the 2007–
2008 self-study provided the College with data on the extent of our current international programs,
faculty members’ international expertise and experience, and on future developments in the
international environment. The self-study report, Globalization at CMC, served as the principal
discussion topic at the March 2008 Board of Trustee retreat. (Doc 6d-6. “Globalization at CMC” 2–
29-08) At the retreat, there was broad consensus among the Trustees for the College to move forward
with its plans to enhance global education. Subsequent to all of these efforts, the College has hired an
Executive Director of International Programs to expand international experiences for students and
faculty, and the Vice President for Admission has begun recruiting in the Middle East and stepped up
our recruiting efforts in Asia.
An additional globalization initiative was embarked upon in 2008 when The Claremont Colleges
received a request from the government of Singapore to develop a proposal for the establishment of a
new Claremont college in that island nation. During the spring and summer of 2008, CMC, along with
Pomona College, took the lead in developing a proposal for such a new college that was submitted to
the Singapore Ministry of Education in March 2009. (Doc 07e. Claremont Singapore Proposal
Ministry of Education, March 2009) The proposal calls for the creation of a liberal arts college in
concert with a Singapore university partner. It is currently under review by the Singapore authorities.
New Consortial Programs
The College also reached an agreement with Pomona College to develop a new cooperative language
program in Arabic, and in 2008, CMC successfully hired Professor Bassam Frangieh from Yale
University to offer the first courses in the Fall of 2008. The success of this program led to the approval
by the Curriculum Committee and the Faculty of the proposal for a new interdisciplinary major in
Middle East Studies. (Doc. 06b-1. Curriculum Committee Meeting Agenda and Minutes 04-02-09;
Doc. 06a-2. Faculty Meeting Agenda and Minutes 04-17-09) In 2009–2010, the College will search for
a second position in Arabic.
6 of 34
Departmental and Institute Reorganizations
During academic year 2008–2009, the College also agreed to a request from the Department of
Philosophy and Religious Studies to separate into two free standing departments, reflecting the fact
that the two disciplines have steadily grown apart in recent decades. This was a significant
development because the College has not established a new department since departments were set up
in the 1960’s, and does not plan to add any new departments. (Doc 06a-5. Faculty Meeting Agenda
and Minutes, 12-09-08)
Another significant change since the submission of our Proposal was the decision to reduce the number
of its research institutes by one. The Reed Institute for Decision Science was closed upon the
retirement of Professor Janet Myhre, the founder and Director of the Institute.
Expanded Facilities
A number of major facility changes have also occurred at the College in the last two years. The
College has constructed and opened the national award-winning Claremont Hall, the largest residence
hall at CMC accommodating 105 students with capacity for future expansion. In the Spring of 2009,
construction was completed on the Biszantz Family Tennis Center. This state of the art Tennis Center
boasts twelve lighted Plexipave (acrylic all-weather surface) courts, and allowed CMC to host the
Division III national men’s tennis championships this past May. By relocating the former tennis
facilities, space located in the middle of the campus has opened up for future buildings. Adjacent to the
Tennis Center, we can now utilize a 90 x 60 grass multi-use practice field. In addition, Claremont
McKenna College has completely renovated Fawcett and Auen Halls, two large tower residence halls.
The College has also constructed several new rental houses for faculty and has recently received
approval to purchase land to the east of the campus for the construction of a new baseball and softball
complex together with additional parking.
The most significant construction project, however, is a new $75 million academic building on the
west side of the campus. This new Kravis Center project consists of the construction of a five-level,
162,000 square-foot academic and administrative facility that will serve as the western gateway to the
Claremont McKenna campus. The overall project includes offices, classrooms, seminar rooms,
research institute spaces, an underground parking structure, and outdoor courtyards.
Capital Campaign
Another major development in 2008 was the announcement of a capital campaign with an ambitious
goal of $600 million dollars. To date, the College has raised $425 million toward the goal. This
campaign includes the aforementioned gift of $200 million from Robert Day in support of the Master
in Finance program, as well as a landmark $75 million gift from the Marie-Josée and Henry R. Kravis
Foundation. In recognition of this generous gift, the College will designate its new signature academic
building as The Kravis Center. In addition to these munificent gifts, the main goals of the campaign
are to raise funds for student scholarships and endowed faculty chairs. (Doc 07g. Preliminary
Campaign Progress Report 05-06-09)
Core Commitment to Institutional Capacity
CMC has a highly differentiated mission for a liberal arts college, which it has pursued with great
vigor and intentionality since its founding. Our mission together with our membership in The
Claremont Colleges Consortium enables the College to maximize the impact of its resources with
fewer academic departments (10) than is typical of most prominent liberal arts colleges. Our financial
7 of 34
resources, including a very substantial endowment per student, are impressive in comparison to most
other colleges of our size, even though we are currently experiencing some shrinkage. Our annual
operating budget in 2008–2009 was $73.4 million, and we had an operating surplus of $10.8 million
for the 2007-08 fiscal year. Private gifts and grants for 2007-08 were $42.6 million. After adjusting for
deferred gifts and adding in unconditional promises to give, total contributions finished the fiscal year
at $208 million. Endowment per student reached $465,000 in June of 2008, although it has declined
somewhat since then. Total debt outstanding decreased during 2008 to 12.5% of total assets. As
reported in our Proposal, the continuing increase in student applications together with our financial
strength are the major factors that have led us to consider increasing our size, and to make growth one
of the two themes we have chosen to explore for this Capacity and Preparatory Review. All of these
factors also suggest the College can muster substantial resources to ensure successful educational
effectiveness for a larger number of students.
Our financial resources allow us to maintain a student faculty ratio of 8:1. Our four course teaching
load and highly competitive salaries permit us to recruit a powerful faculty of highly accomplished
teacher-scholars who are prepared for the task of educating an impressively capable student body.
Only 3.6% of 551 students polled in 2007 in our Student Life survey (Doc 04a-2. CMC Student Life
Survey Results, 2007) indicated that they were dissatisfied with their level of contact with faculty
outside of classes. Our need blind, no loan financial aid policy permits us to accept all applicants
without regard to ability to meet our costs, and to admit only the most qualified students. Our
generous financial aid also means that our level of underrepresented students is comparatively high,
since there are very few financial barriers to attendance. The total tuition discount, despite the
generosity of the College’s financial aid program, was 34.1% for 2007–2008. Our financial and
personnel resources are clearly sufficient to meet the needs of our institutional goals as contained in
our current Strategic Plan. They also permit us to actively develop data for planning and analysis on a
regular basis as is evidenced by our annual CMC Fact Book and the Strategic Indicators Report. (Doc
03d-2. CMC Fact Book, 2008; Doc 03c. CMC Strategic Indicators Report 2008)
Core Commitment to Educational Effectiveness
CMC has made a commitment to develop a comprehensive educational effectiveness program that
includes programmatic and overall learning and is based on the collection and evaluation of data. This
extends our existing efforts to evaluate student learning and is consistent with our goals and mission.
For some years the College has actively gathered data from various internal and external sources to
evaluate our educational effectiveness as an institution of higher education including surveys of
students and alumni and completion of external program reviews. However, it is only since our current
reaffirmation review began that we have embarked on an ambitious institution-wide effort to focus
these assessment activities on student learning outcomes as mandated by the Standards. Given our
progress to date since the submission of our Proposal, we believe we are well on the way to meeting
this core commitment.
In 2008, WASC revised a number of the CFRs and added new requirements to the institutional review
process. Throughout our Report, we focus attention on our core commitments to capacity and
educational effectiveness, the Standards, and the revised CFRs.
The institution is very close to completing its definitions of educational effectiveness and has made a
firm commitment to fully implement and sustain a comprehensive and systematic educational
effectiveness program. Finally, the College operates with high levels of institutional integrity and
maintains active and regular relationships with WASC to ensure that any changes of substance are
readily communicated for review. (See Appendix II: Stipulated Policies)
8 of 34
Essay on Standard 1:
Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives
CMC has a distinctive mission that clearly defines its central tendencies and operational practices and
is published in the Catalog and the Faculty Handbook. (CFR 1.1) There is broad agreement on
educational objectives and the College has adopted educational goals and SLOs for the College as a
whole. The College is actively developing similar indicators of achievement at the departmental and
program as well as at the course level. When this effort is completed in 2009–2010, the College will
have a system for measuring student achievement in terms of learning outcomes, in addition to our
existing means of evaluating retention and degree completion (Doc 03d. CMC Fact Book; Doc 03c.
CMC Strategic Indicators Report 2008). We currently ensure information on student achievement
public on our website by means of our Common Data Set (CDS) which includes figures on graduates
by major. We are pleased that our five-year graduation rate is over 90%. When available, we will
provide the results of our general assessment program on our website as well. (CFR 1.2 as revised)
The College has a highly accomplished leadership cadre with extensive experience and considerable
length of service to the College. The President is assisted by eight Vice Presidents who oversee the
various functional areas of the College. The Academic Vice President and Dean of the Faculty is
assisted by the Dean of the Robert Day School, two Associate Deans, and an Assistant Dean of the
Faculty. The President, Vice Presidents, Associate Deans of Faculty, and several other administrative
officers comprise the Senior Staff, which functions as the major administrative planning, decisionmaking, and operations body. (CFR 1.3) The credentials of the College’s leaders are impressive. The
President is the former Dean of the Duke Law School and has led the College for ten years. The Vice
President for Academic Affairs (Academic Dean) is a distinguished economist and holds an endowed
chair. The Vice President for Special Projects has a thirty-year administrative career having served as a
Professor, Dean of Students, Dean of the Faculty, Provost, and Acting President at several Colleges.
The Vice President for Student Affairs has an eighteen-year career in Student Services, including
fourteen at CMC. He also is ABD at Claremont Graduate University. The Vice President for
Development has more than thirty years of experience in development at several liberal arts colleges
together with extensive experience as a development consultant. The Vice President for Alumni and
Parent Relations is a graduate of the College and has nearly twenty-five years of experience in
development and administration at CMC. The Vice President for Business and Administration has
worked for twenty-four years in college financial administration at Pomona College and for seven
years at CMC, and prior to that was a Senior Accountant with Coopers Lybrand. The Vice President
for Admission has served in this capacity for twenty-two years. The Vice President for Administration
and Planning is a graduate of the College, serves as the College’s General Counsel and Secretary to the
Board, and has worked on planning and development at the College for nearly ten years. (Doc 06f-21
through 28. CV’s for Vice Presidents) During their retreats, all members of the Senior Staff establish a
set of new goals for the next semester (or summer) and produce a report on the accomplishment of the
previous period’s goals. (Doc 06f-1 & Doc 06f-7. Senior Staff Meeting)
The Board of Trustees has forty members and meets four times a year. Particularly through its
committees, it exercises careful oversight of the different operations of the College, including
conducting annual reviews of the President. (Doc 06d. Pertinent Board of Trustees meeting materials;
Doc 06e. Pertinent Academic Affairs Committee Agendas and Minutes)
9 of 34
The College has published statements of academic freedom (CFR 1.4) that protect teaching and
research, and it is also addressed in Chapter Four of our Faculty Handbook.
The College recognizes the importance of diversity in our society and through its Statement on
Diversity and the mission of the Diversity Committee is to maintain continuing attention to diversity
issues on our campus and in our operations. (CFR 1.5) (Doc 04a. CMC Student Life Survey Results
2006, 2007; Doc 04c. Senior Survey (UCLA- HERI) 2006, 2007, 2008; Doc 04e. NSSE 2008 Mean and
Frequency Reports) We are pleased that our continuing efforts to attract underrepresented groups of
students have met with considerable success. In 2008-09, minority students made up 37% of our
freshmen class (Doc 03d-2. CMC Fact Book 2008). Some of this growth can be attributed to our
membership in Posse and Questbridge, two programs designed to assist institutions in recruiting
underrepresented students. Unfortunately, these high cost programs are too expensive to maintain in
the current fiscal environment and we will need to rely on our own admissions staff in the next few
years to maintain our momentum in minority recruitment. Efforts to add to diversity among our
faculty have been less successful. The percentage of women is up only slightly from 27% in 1999–
2000 to 30% of full-time and tenure track faculty (including Joint Science) in 2008–2009. The
percentage of minority faculty has experienced better growth during the same years, up from 10% to
17%. The growth in both cases is somewhat offset by the fact the regular academic tenured and tenuretrack faculty has grown by 32.5% since 1999–2000. The tenured appointment of Jamaica Kincaid to a
chaired professorship in Literature beginning in 2009–2010 does bode well for future efforts to attract
distinguished minority faculty to the College. We are also pleased that her appointment is the second
appointment of an African-American woman to the faculty in two years. Efforts to improve the
diversity of our Board of Trustees have experienced only modest success. Board membership for
2008–2009 was 40. This included 7 women (17.5%), 2 African Americans (5%), 1 Asian American
(2.5%) and 1 Latino (2.5%).
The College has no history of political, religious, corporate or other interference in the delivery of its
educational programs or the pursuit of its self-defined mission, and is, within the context of The
Claremont Colleges Consortium, an autonomous self-governing institution. (CFR 1.6) The institution
operates with integrity, treats its students fairly, and has published grievance processes. (See Appendix
II: Stipulated Policies) In the 2007 Student Life Survey, 84% responded that they had sufficient access
to administrators and faculty, and 67.4% noted that administrators acted on student concerns in a
timely manner. (Doc 04a-2. CMC Student Life Survey Results, 2007) The College has published
grading policies as well as published procedures for grade appeals. (CFR 1.7 as revised). Additional
general grievance procedures have been proposed, are under review, and are expected to be approved
in the Fall of 2009.
To ensure that the College functions with integrity and sound business practices, the Board of Trustees
has created an audit committee as a standing board committee, and has adopted policies on conflicts of
interest. (Doc 06d-5. Board of Trustees Conflict of Interest Policies) The College’s financial operations
are audited annually and there are no material conditions attached to the audits. (CFR 1.8 as revised).
The College pursues an open and honest relationship with WASC and promptly notifies the
Commission of any circumstances that materially affect its accreditation status. Most recently this
occurred in 2008 with our substantive change application to add the master’s degree program in
Financial Economics. (CFR 1.9 as revised)
10 of 34
Essay on Standard 2:
Achieving Educational Objectives through Core Functions
The College’s resources are positioned to carry out our educational mission in terms of teaching and
learning and to ensure student success. With a student faculty ratio of 8:1, CMC is in a select cadre of
colleges and universities able to offer a rich faculty-student environment that epitomizes the essence of
small college learning. A full 98.7% of our faculty members have earned the terminal degree in their
field, and all are expected to demonstrate active scholarship as well as strong teaching skills. Toward
the end of each semester, students are asked to evaluate every course in which they are enrolled. (Doc.
05b-1. Course Evaluation Form; Scantron Form; Doc. 05b-2. Course Evaluation Individual Averages,
Spring 2009; Doc. 05b-3 Course Evaluation Department Averages, Spring 2009; Doc 05b-4. Course
Evaluation College Averages, Spring 2009) These evaluations are a resource used by the Dean of the
Faculty’s Office in annual reviews of untenured faculty, Appointment, Promotion and Tenure
decisions, salary decisions, etc. Since our last WASC review, the College has adopted a new policy of
engaging outside peer reviews of departments and academic programs. All departments have
completed the first cycle of external reviews and a new cycle is scheduled to begin in 2010–2011.
(CFR 2.1) (Doc 05c-1. External Review Guidelines, May 2000; Doc 05c-2. Overview of the
Department of Economics; Doc 05c-3. Assessment of the CMC Economics Department and Economics
Major, April 2005)
Requirements for the undergraduate degree are available in the Catalog. The graduate degree
requirements and courses will be included in the 2009–2010 Catalog. The curriculum follows a
standard four year program, and is grounded in a distributional model of general liberal arts education
including: a required first-year introduction to the humanities in the Freshman Humanities Seminar
(FHS); a senior thesis in the major as a capstone experience; courses for at least one major; free
electives; and completion of our General Education Requirements. For our General Education
Requirements, students must take at least 44 semester hours (or the equivalent) of courses in
mathematics, composition and literary analysis, science, social sciences, humanities, and foreign
language. The major usually requires at least 40 semester hours of course work. Many CMC students
select to complete a dual or double major and complete between 70 and 80 semester hours in their
combined majors. Students make up the remainder of the courses with free electives and are
encouraged to take advantage of the broad array of courses offered by the Consortium.
Students easily fulfill the Standards’ minimum of 45 units of upper division courses during their
completion of a total of 128 semester hours of coursework. Students must complete a minimum of 32
courses, earn a cumulative C (6.00) average for all courses taken, a C (6.00) average in all courses in
the major(s), and a C (6.00) average in all courses taken in the senior year to be eligible for graduation.
(CFR 2.2)
Each course has a syllabus that explains the goals of the course, the requirements for completion of the
course, and grading policies. (Doc 06b. Curriculum Committee materials) We have asked the faculty
to include learning outcomes in their course syllabi and to prepare to post their course syllabi online.
Some faculty members are reluctant to comply with these requests arguing that it is too prescriptive.
The Graduate Program has generated syllabi for its courses with SLOs and they have mapped the
SLOs to courses and posted them on the website (see above). The economics faculty members are
currently mapping their courses to their learning outcomes and we expect their course syllabi to
include SLOs by the fall. The Government Department has also mapped its SLOs to courses, but is not
11 of 34
ready to include the SLOs in course syllabi. The Literature Department, too, has mapped its SLOs to
courses, and is considering adding SLOs to their syllabi, but they most likely will not have completed
this process by the beginning of the Fall semester. The Joint Science faculty has mapped courses to
SLOs for its general education courses but not yet for the major courses. (Doc 05a. Sample Course
Proposals and Syllabi)
Undergraduate students engage in a course of study that emphasizes both depth (the major) and
breadth (the general education program) (CFR 2.2a), and prepares them for “leadership in business, the
professions, and government.” “By combining the intellectual breadth of the liberal arts with the more
pragmatic concerns of public affairs, … CMC helps students acquire the vision, skills, and values they
will need to lead society.” (Quoted from 2008–2009 CMC Catalog, page 1.) Our assessment and
evaluation program, described below, is designed to evaluate our success in achieving these twin aims.
Results from our 2008 Alumni survey provide some preliminary data. Asked how well CMC prepared
them for leadership roles in their professions after college, 74% of 2,559 respondents answered
extremely well or very well: only 4% answered not well. Alumni responded favorably to the College’s
general education program. Summing up their academic experience, 2,554 of 2,564 alumni
respondents indicated in the 2008 that CMC’s education met their expectations (see above). Current
students share these perspectives. 91% of respondents in the 2007 Student Life Survey indicated their
expectations for the academic program of the College had been met. (Doc 4a-2. CMC Student Life
Survey Results, 2007).
The newly developed graduate program in Financial Economics is consistent with the College’s
mission and builds on the strength of the College’s outstanding economics department because its
newly hired graduate faculty will also offer courses to qualified undergraduates. The approval of the
graduate program through the substantive change process in the Spring of 2009 demonstrates that the
College has sufficient resources, including new and existing faculty and administrators, to sustain the
program and to create a graduate level academic culture.(Doc 02a. WASC Substantive Change
Proposal, RDA MA in Finance 2008-2011, 09-16-08; Doc 02b. WASC Substantive Change Committee
Action Report for RDS MA in Finance 12-04-08; Doc 02c. WASC Structural Change Committee
Approval, 03-19-09, RDS MA Program in Finance)
As will be explicated in more detail below, CMC has developed student learning outcomes (SLO’s) for
all departments, for the general education requirement, and for many courses. These outcomes have
been developed by the faculty and reflect the intentions and expectations of the programs to which they
apply. As a result, they are consistent with our curriculum, our extensive library resources, faculty
advising, and the institutional learning environment. As noted earlier, students are quite satisfied with
many services offered by the College. This also applies to library resources. 79.7% of seniors
responded in the 2008 Senior Survey that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the library
resources available to them. (Doc 04c-3. 2008 Senior Survey (UCLA – HERI)) And 80.4% of 547
students participating in the 2007 Student Life Survey were satisfied or very satisfied with the library
resources. (Doc 04a-2. CMC Student Life Survey Results, 2007). In terms of information technology
resources, seniors responding to the NSSE survey averaged 3.58 on a four point scale in terms of their
use of computers in their academic work compared with 3.45 for all Carnegie I institution’s students.
83.7% of students responded that academic computing met their needs in the 2007 College Life
Survey. (Doc 04e. NSSE 2008 Mean and Frequency Reports) (CFR 2.3 as revised)
Through monthly Faculty Meetings, Curriculum Committee and departmental decisions and
deliberations, the faculty has assumed the responsibility for establishing and reviewing student
learning. As a result, the expectations for learning and student attainment are widely shared. All
academic courses and programs are presented to the Curriculum Committee by the department or
program, and, after approval, submitted to the full faculty for discussion and final approval. (Doc 06a.
12 of 34
Faculty Meeting Agenda and Minutes – examples; Doc 06b. Curriculum Committee Agenda and
Minutes – examples)
Our traditional methods of evaluation include student evaluations of every course, interviews with
students, and in-class observations. These will soon be coupled with our emerging evaluation and
assessment program, which will permit us to publicly demonstrate the levels of learning attained by
our students. We intend to publish the results of the NSSE, CLA, and other surveys that pertain to
student learning as well as other assessment data on our website. (CFR 2.4)
Students are actively engaged in learning. Responding to the four point scale of the NSSE survey with
1 equaling “never” and 4 equaling “very often,” seniors averaged 3.42 and freshmen averaged 3.30
when queried about asking questions in class. Comparable figures for all Carnegie I students were 3.29
and 3.03. (Doc 04e. NSSE 2008 Mean and Frequency Reports) CMC students are challenged to meet
high expectations and are provided with feedback on their performance. A majority, 57.6%, of our
seniors in the 2008 Senior Survey indicated they were intellectually challenged and stimulated by their
professors, compared to 53.6% at all other four-year private colleges, and 33% indicated they received
feedback from professors in addition to their graded work. (Doc 04c-3. 2008 Senior Survey (UCLA –
HERI)) When asked about receiving prompt written or oral feedback from faculty on their academic
performance, seniors responding to the NSSE survey (see above) averaged 3.12 and freshmen 3.09 on
a four point scale of frequency. The comparable Carnegie I averages were 2.97 and 2.83. (CFR 2.5 as
revised) The new Xitracs program that the College has recently purchased will also assist the College
with the management and tracking of documentation used for evaluation and assessment of
institutional data and provide demonstrative means of evaluating student learning beyond our current
methods and help to ensure that faculty expectations are imbedded in our evaluation of student work.
(CFR 2.6)
All programs offered by the College are subject to external program review. The initial cycle has been
completed (see above). By the time the next cycle begins in 2010–2011, every department will have
completed its evaluation and assessment program and will have results to share with external
reviewers, something that was not previously possible. (CFR 2.7)
CMC actively values, promotes, and requires scholarship among its faculty. Some of our faculty
members, particularly in the sciences and in psychology, have engaged in scholarship related to
teaching, learning, and assessment. This research is valued and is considered in cases of promotion
and tenure. (Doc 05e-3. Promotion/Tenure Letter from Department; Doc 05e-2.Promotion/Tenure
Letter from Outside Reviewer) (CFR 2.8 as revised)
The College also recognizes the important linkages among teaching, scholarship, student learning, and
service. President Gann has composed a whitepaper addressing The Power of Student Research, noting
“One of the clear advantages of small classes and close student-faculty relationships is that our faculty
encourage students to get involved in academic experiences outside the traditional classroom and they
are more than willing to serve as mentors for student research projects.” Departmental tenure reports
address faculty contributions to teaching, advising and student learning, research activities, and
service. (CFR 2.9) (Doc 05e-1. Promotion/Tenure Report from Department)
CMC regularly assesses the preparation of its students prior to admission and collects and analyzes
data disaggregated by areas of study and, where possible, by demographic categories. The College
tracks success measures such as student graduation rates, disaggregated by ethnicity and gender and
published these data annually in the CMC Fact Book. (Doc 03d. CMC Fact Book) We are pleased to
note that the six-year graduation rate for all male students has risen in the last five years from 89% to
96.3%. The 2008 six-year percentage graduation rate for African American males entering in 2002 was
100%; the rate for White males entering in 2002 was 97.6%; the rate for Hispanic males was 91.7%;
13 of 34
and the rate for Asian-American males was 90.5%. Six year graduation rates for all women have
remained constant over the last five years at 92%. The rate for Asian-American women was 100%; for
Native American women it was 100%; for Hispanic women it was 93.8%; for White women it was
91.2%; and for African-American women it was 85.7% reflecting that six out of seven AfricanAmerican women graduated.
Student satisfaction and campus climate are tracked every year through the CMC Student Life Survey,
the Senior Survey (UCLA – HERI), and a number of other surveys. For example, 92.7% of our seniors
responding to the 2008 Senior Survey said they were satisfied or very satisfied with their overall
quality of instruction. 92.6% of 547 students surveyed in our 2007 CMC Student Life Survey
indicated their overall experience at CMC had been positive. For alumni, only 29 respondents out of
2,553, 1%, indicated in the 2008 Alumni Survey that CMC gave them poor preparation for life. (Doc
04a. CMC Student Life Survey Results 2006, 2007; Doc 04b. Freshman Survey (UCLA-HERI) 2006,
2007, 2008; Doc 04c. Senior Survey (UCLA – HERI), 2006, 2007, 2008; Doc 04f. CMC Alumni Survey
Summary 02-16-09) (CFR 2.10 as revised). CMC has occasionally assessed some of its co-curricular
programs such as athletics, but does not have a systematic assessment schedule. (Doc 05c. CMS
Athletic Self Study for External Review, and related documents) (CFR 2.11 as revised)
The College provides accurate, timely, and well regarded academic advice through the Registrar: 92%
of students responding to the 2007 Student Life Survey rated the Office as helpful when they sought
assistance, the highest rating for any administrative office. The College has a faculty advising program
and annually holds an orientation and information meeting for faculty members advising new students
regarding academic policies and requirements. A majority of students (66% for major advisors and
59% for general education advising) indicated in the 2007 Student Life Survey that they are satisfied
with the advising system. (CFR 2.12 as revised)
The Student Support Services provided by the College are extensive and well-regarded by students.
For example, 83.9% of respondents in the 2007 Student Life Survey reported that the Dean of Students
Office was helpful; 75% felt the financial Aid Office was helpful; 69.9% indicated that the Career
Services Office was helpful; and 65.8% felt the Facilities and Campus Services Office was helpful.
The 2008 Senior Survey indicated that 73.1% of the Seniors indicated they were satisfied or very
satisfied with student housing facilities compared with 57.4% at all four-year private colleges; 60%
were satisfied or very satisfied with psychological services (compared with 54.5%); and 58.2% were
satisfied or very satisfied with student health services (compared with 53.7%).
In the 2007 Student Life Survey, 54.7% of all students surveyed indicated that they were satisfied or
very satisfied with Collins Dining Hall, the CMC campus dining center. (Doc 04a-2. CMC Student Life
Survey Results, 2007; Doc 04c-3. 2008 Senior Survey (UCLA – HERI)) Student services operated by
CMC are supplemented by additional services operated by The Claremont Colleges Consortium
including the psychological and health services referred to above. (CFR 2.13) Transfer students are
usually not a large group and receive personal advice from the Registrar upon entry to review their
academic program and their requirements. (CFR 2.14)
14 of 34
Essay on Standard 3:
Engaging the Environment and Ensuring Sustainability
The Claremont McKenna College community places a high value on environmental stewardship as
well as working on campus and within the community to build and support sustainability and carbon
neutral practices. In 2007, CMC President Pamela Gann signed the American College and University
Presidents Climate Commitment, with the College also developing a campus-specific plans over the
next two years.
Already, CMC tracks environmental impacts as reported by The Roberts Environmental Center, and
takes steps to reduce its environmental footprints. Sustainability Guidelines have been adopted to
encourage leadership opportunities in such areas as power use, building construction, waste
management practices, and purchasing.
The College supports and enhances its educational program through substantial investment of physical
resources, information technology, and personnel and careful, planned, and effective use of resources
helps provide for an educational environment of high quality for our students and their learning. The
endowment provided the College with $465,000 per student in 2007–2008. The annual operating
budget provides over $70 million for an enrollment of 1212. (CMC Financial Reports) As shown
above (see Section I, Institutional Context), the College employs sufficient faculty and staff to deliver
an outstanding educational program to its students as evidenced by our 8:1 student faculty ratio.
Students report high levels of satisfaction with their education at the College. 89.3% of 460 students
who responded to the question in the 2007 Student Life Survey indicated they would recommend CMC
to siblings and friends as a good place to go to college. Only 3.1% would not recommend it. (Doc
04a-2. CMC Student Life Survey Results, 2007) (CFR 3.1)
The faculty is highly-qualified as attested to by their credentials in the College Catalog, and while not
as diverse as we would wish (see above Section I, Responses to Prior Commission Actions.), it is well
able to achieve its educational objectives, to oversee academic policies, and to ensure the integrity and
continuity of its programs. As the College puts its assessment and evaluation program into effect, it
will include part-time and full-time visiting and adjunct faculty in the assessment process, in program
reviews, and faculty development. (CFR 3.2 as revised). The College has had an extensive new faculty
orientation program for some years. (Doc 07a. New Faculty Orientation.) In the last three years,
CMC’s own faculty orientation program has been supplemented in the early summer with a new
faculty orientation program for all of The Claremont Colleges (Doc 07b. New Faculty Workshop
In section 3.5 of our handbook, we have well-developed faculty workload and evaluation policies that
include a four course teaching load, expectations for scholarship, teaching, and service, as well as
policies on outside consulting and teaching. (CFR 3.3) The College provides faculty development
support through the Faculty Research Committee and the Teaching Resource Center (although its
budget has been curtailed in the recent financial environment). (CFR 3.4 as revised)
The institution has a long history of financial stability, unqualified audits, no accumulated deficits, and
sufficient resources for long-term viability. Financial planning is realistic and reflects careful
enrollment planning and diverse and significant revenue sources. We use a five-year financial
planning model for much of our institutional planning and it is updated regularly. (Doc 07f. CMC 5Year Financial Model; Doc 03d. CMC Fact Book, 2007, 2008) (CFR 3.5 as revised)
15 of 34
Turning to Information Resources, Claremont McKenna College has made considerable progress. In its
Tracking Report, the Information Technology Services Department records its progress on five
strategic Information Technology Goals:
(1) Focus on Instruction, Learning, and Research – How technology is used effectively and
efficiently to: a) enhance, deliver, and evaluate instructional initiatives and student learning; b)
develop, enhance, support, and evaluate research initiatives; and c) provide high quality
training and support for the use of information technologies to assure productivity and
efficiency among students, faculty, and staff.
(2) Infrastructure and Security – The ongoing need for reliable, secure, appropriate, and costeffective hardware, software and network access across the College, focusing on management
of the total cost of ownership to the College over the technology life cycle and staying abreast
of the advances in our infrastructure and facilities and continue thoughtful and efficient
(3) Strategic Use of the Web and Web-based Technology – The development of a Collegewide web strategy and the necessary support services required for the College to make strategic
use of web-based technology for both internal and external communication, transactions, and
information sharing.
(4) Service and Community – Using technology to improve the quality of life for the College
community and the communities it serves, including our students; trustees; parents; alumni;
consortium; and the external community.
(5) IT Organization, Policy Management, and Consortial IT Cooperation – To improve IT
resources by reorganization, consolidation, and review of policies to foster better morale,
greater communication, more productivity, and alignment with shifting legal obligations, as
well as to foster better cooperation in consortial information technology initiatives.
Instructional technology support continues and is located in a small subdivision of Information
Technology Services. In concert with the TRC, ITS arranges training sessions for students in the
fluency skills, works with faculty to design special training for classes, and offers faculty workshops.
The measures of student happiness with Information Technology considered in the UCLA Higher
Education Research Institute Senior Survey (HERI) of the class of 2008 show high marks across the
board as compared to the responses from other like institutions nationwide. Three of 22 measures
studied relate to computing. Even within CMC, IT fares extremely well in terms of students reporting
that they are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with Information Technology at CMC. Of the 22 CMC
indicators, Availability of Internet Access shows the highest level of satisfaction (88.3% of our
students are “satisfied” or “very satisfied”; we are higher than our other like institutions by 15
percentage points); ITS’s Computer Facilities rank third (81.7% of our students are “satisfied” or “very
satisfied”; higher than our other like institutions by 13.3 percentage points); and our third IT measure,
Quality of Computer Training/Assistance, comes in at #12 of the 22 measures at CMC, with 65.4% of
our students expressing that they are “satisfied” or “very satisfied.” This third measure is higher than
our peer institutions by 11.7 percentage points.
Further, our excellent rate of ports to pillow, speed of the internet, and strong wireless resources have
led to our receiving the #1 ranking of all 22 CMC indicators in the UCLA Higher Education Research
Institute Senior Survey (HERI) of the class of 2008. We routinely score very well in this area on this
study; a full 88.3% of students queried reported being “satisfied” or “very satisfied,” and we are higher
16 of 34
than our other like institutions by 15 percentage points. Clearly, the College has sufficient information
resources both of its own and those shared with the other Claremont Colleges to support its educational
purposes and meet the needs of students learning outcomes as noted above in survey data reported in
several paragraphs above. (CFR 3.6 as revised)
Our ITS Information Technology Strategic Plan Tracking Report further notes the information
technology resources for academic and administrative needs, which are supplemented by those
resources of The Claremont Colleges including The Honnold Libraries. (CFR 3.7) The Student Life
Survey of 2007 indicates that 83.7% of all 547 students polled indicated that the College’s information
technology resources met their needs. In 2008, 81.7% of seniors polled in the Senior Survey indicated
that the computer facilities and equipment met their needs compared to 68.4% at all private four-year
colleges. And 88.3% of CMC seniors were satisfied or very satisfied with their access to the Internet,
compared to 73.3% at all other four-year private colleges. Finally, in terms of the quality of computer
training and assistance, 65.4% of seniors were satisfied or very satisfied, versus 53.7% for other
colleges. (Doc 04a-2. CMC Student Life Survey Results, 2007; Doc 04c-3. 2008 Senior Survey
The College has effective roles and responsibilities for its staff and places priority on its academic
programs (Faculty and Administration; Doc 06f-20. CMC Organization Chart 07- 01-09) (CFR 3.8 as
revised) The College has an independent Board that exercises appropriate oversight and authority and
evaluates the President. It meets four times per year. It engages in self-review to enhance its
effectiveness. (Doc 06d. Board of Trustees Agenda and Minutes) (CFR 3.9 as revised) The College has
a full-time CEO and Treasurer as well as sufficient numbers of other administrators to ensure effective
leadership. As noted above, the Senior Staff is composed of the President of the College, eight Vice
Presidents and seven other staff members. (CFR 3.10 as revised)
The faculty exercises academic leadership to ensure academic quality and educational purposes and
character. Indeed, over the last two years, through the work of the Administration Committee, the
Faculty Handbook has been extensively revised and issues of faculty responsibility were reviewed and
expanded to ensure that the role of the faculty was clearly aligned with its responsibilities. (Doc 06h.
Administration Committee Agendas; Doc 06a. Faculty Meeting Agenda and Minutes; Doc 06d. Board
of Trustees Agenda and Minutes) (CFR 3.11 as revised)
Essay on Standard 4:
Creating an Organization Committed to Learning and Improvement
The College engages in dialogue concerning its purposes especially when embarking on strategic
planning efforts as the College is currently doing. These efforts enhance institutional planning and as
the emerging educational assessment and evaluation program gains traction, it will assist the College in
setting educational priorities and approaches to student learning. The faculty was actively involved in
developing our Strategic Plan. The College regularly monitors the effectiveness of the planning
processes and of our current Strategic Plan which covers the time period from 2002 until 2012. (Doc.
03a. CMC Strategic Plan: A Vision for 2002 - 2012, 03-15-02) The 2002 Strategic Plan continues to
provide guidance for College decision-making, but we are in the process of new planning effort to
respond to changing external circumstances. (Doc 06d-21. Board of Trustees 2002 Strategic Plan
Tracking Report, 06- 18-09; Doc 06d-2. Board of Trustees Academic Programming Initiatives, 03-1309; Doc 06d-22. Board of Trustees 2009–2010 Strategic Planning Framework, 06-18-09) (CFR 4.1 as
17 of 34
revised) These planning activities align the various academic and other resources with the Strategic
Plan priorities. (CFR 4.2) Planning processes are informed by data and increasingly will include
consideration of evidence of educational effectiveness and student learning (see above). (CFR 4.3)
The College uses measures and metrics to ensure quality, as well as comparative data from outside
sources, to ensure quality delivery of our programs and services (Doc 03c. CMC Strategic Indicators
Report 2008; Doc 04g. IPEDS Data Feedback Report 2008) (CFR 4.4 as revised)
The College has an Office of Institutional Research with a full-time professional researcher and
supplemented by the Registrar and its data is used and continue to be used both for decision-making
and for assessing student learning. (Office of Institutional Research) Nearly all student surveys and
data used by various college offices, including the Student Life Survey, are developed with and
collected by the Office of Institutional Research. (For example, CMC Common Data Set, IPEDS
surveys, Student Life Survey, etc.) (CFR 4.5 as revised)
The Faculty evaluates teaching and assesses learning, and will be adding to its capacity in this area
through the coming implementation of the College’s assessment and evaluation program. In 2009–
2010, the Curriculum Committee will be reviewing our current educational offerings through an indepth evaluation of the structures of our majors and sequences; the Curriculum Committee will also
embark on a review of grading practices and grade inflation questions. The Senior Staff uses
assessment techniques and data analysis for most of its important decisions. (See above) (CFR 4.6)
Faculty committees engage in ongoing inquiry of teaching and learning and apply the outcomes to
improve curricula and programs. The review of our former Civilization program and substitution of the
Freshman Humanities program is an example of the faculty’s and students’ desire to improve the
curriculum. (Doc 06a-9. Faculty Meeting Agenda and Minutes, 02-08-08) Another recent innovative
example is the new Accelerated Integrated Science Sequence (AISS) of the Joint Science Department
which allows selected students to complete a year of introductory biology, chemistry and physics in a
two-year sequence through four team-taught integrated courses. (Doc 06a-12. Faculty Meeting Agenda
and Minutes, 03-06-07) (CFR 4.7 as revised) Finally, alumni and appropriate stakeholders are
involved in regular assessment of educational programs. The College recently received the results of a
major survey of alumni including feedback on academic programs. (Doc 04f. CMC Alumni Survey
Summary 02-16-09.) The various advisory boards for our research institutes engage in such
assessments regularly. The Robert Day School has a new advisory Board that is engaged in advising
on the educational program, including the co-curricular component. (Robert Day School) (CFR 4.8)
18 of 34
Essay on Theme 1: Assessing Student Learning
In our Proposal for the CPR and the EER, we raised six central questions regarding how we intend to
make progress on assessing student learning. Below, we record each question and explicate our current
experience to date:
How will faculty and staff workloads be affected by a focus on educational effectiveness? We
have determined that we have sufficient faculty and staff resources to develop the assessment
process without the need to make additional hires. As the assessment and evaluation process
becomes more operational over the next several years we will need to continue to monitor the
demands it places on our faculty and staff. Furthermore, at this point, it has become clear that
we currently have sufficient in-house expertise to develop our learning goals and SLOs without
the need to bring in outside consultants.
How will incentives for faculty be managed to ensure their active and willing participation in
the educational effectiveness effort? We have been able to accomplish a great deal with the
assistance of our current faculty. When the College adopted the four course teaching load in
2005-06, the Board determined that the College would no longer grant additional course
reductions for faculty taking on administrative tasks. The College considers service as an
element in tenure and promotion decisions and work on assessment has clearly become a part
of the service component.
How frequently should departmental and programmatic assessment and evaluation take place?
Most departments intend to conduct some aspects of assessment each year, although they may
not test for every SLO each year. As we gain more experience, we should learn on a
department by department basis how much assessment we can expect each year. At the overall
institutional level, we are currently producing assessment data annually through our rotating
system of student and alumni surveys that permit some evaluation of student learning outcomes
annually. As part of our external review policy, departments are required to complete an
internal review or self-study to pass on to the review team. When the next round of external
reviews begins in 2010–2011, we will require each department to incorporate their assessment
and evaluation results in the self-study materials. We anticipate conducting at least two
departmental reviews each year.
How much emphasis should be placed on general education outcomes as opposed to
programmatic outcomes? We have placed greater emphasis on implementing general education
outcomes assessment and evaluation but at the same time ensuring that assessment at the
programmatic level is proceeding at a pace commensurate with departmental resources.
How can we ensure that our data collection efforts will be conducted in a timely fashion and
that the results will be available to decision-makers in a timely fashion? The WASC Steering
Committee has taken the lead in successfully monitoring the general education and
departmental assessment planning and implementation efforts. In the Fall of 2009, we plan to
create a Committee on Assessment to take over this function on a permanent basis. It will
become a regular faculty/staff committee for service and assignment purposes. The Committee
will be chaired by a faculty member, as part of his or her regular committee responsibilities, or
by one of the Associate Deans of the Faculty. The Committee will be supported by the Office
of Institutional Research, the Dean of Faculty’s Office, and Information Technology Services.
How can we involve our Teaching Resource Center in educational effectiveness activities to
enhance pedagogical effectiveness and SLOs? We have begun work on a plan to incorporate
19 of 34
the TRC into the process although current funding limitations have reduced the level of activity
of the Center.
As we set out in our Proposal, under the management of the Office of the Dean of the Faculty and with
the guidance of an Assessment Subcommittee composed of faculty and staff (the WASC Steering
Committee), we promised a significant effort by every academic department and program to develop a
set of measurable student learning outcomes (SLOs). The Curriculum Committee was to be charged
with developing a set of SLOs for the general education program. At this point we are pleased to report
that this task was accomplished in the spring of 2009 and the goals and SLOs were passed on to the
Faculty Meeting and the Board of Trustees for approval. (Doc 06b-5 & 4. Curriculum Committee
materials 12-11-08, 01–29-09; Doc 06a-3 & 2 & 1. Faculty Meeting Agenda and Minutes 03-10-09,
04-17-09, 05-12-09; Doc 06d-1. Board of Trustees Agenda and (draft) Minutes 05-12-09) After the
completion of the Proposal, the Curriculum Committee, or some other representative committee, was
projected to evaluate various options for assessing general educational outcomes such as the Collegiate
Learning Assessment (CLA). In 2008–2009, the Curriculum Committee and the WASC Steering
Committee agreed to adopt not just the CLA, but to use also the NSSE, the Senior Survey (UCLA HERI), our own Student Life Survey, and a planned alumni survey to support our evaluation efforts. In
fact, we have moved ahead of our schedule and have actually administered these surveys and are
currently evaluating the initial results. And as mentioned before, the College requires every student to
complete a senior thesis, which is a general education requirement, but also a capstone experience in at
least one of each student’s majors. Most departments are intending to use an assessment of the senior
thesis for departmental evaluation purposes. We expect to be able to develop a common rubric for the
thesis that will permit us to assess the theses for general education purposes as well.
Under our timeline, departments were expected to proceed and establish departmental goals and means
of assessment by the Fall of 2009. Currently, all departments have developed their goals and most
have completed work on establishing learning outcomes for students and means of assessing the
outcomes. Thus, we expect to be very near to completing our goal in the Fall. The Assessment
Subcommittee, acting under the authority of the Dean of the Faculty, will act as the clearing house to
receive the results of the assessments by the various departments and programs, and will produce an
annual report on the results.
We believe we have demonstrated the capacity at the general educational and departmental levels to
complete the remaining aspects of these tasks and to move on to the gathering of data and evaluation
tasks. At this point, it is not clear that we will need additional clerical assistance to handle the burden
of the assessment data we produce. All future external reviews will require the inclusion of SLO
materials. Since these evaluation and assessment activities may well require additional survey efforts,
it may be necessary to add staff assistance in the Office of Institutional Research.
As is the case for most of higher education, Claremont McKenna College has for many years relied
almost exclusively on traditional means of evaluating students’ learning, including letter grades,
examinations both oral and written, research experiences involving students, senior theses, writing
assignments, classroom and thesis presentations, surveys of student perceptions of their learning,
alumni surveys and external program reviews. However, after the last re-accreditation process and the
receipt of the Commission’s Recommendations (see Section I), the College began to more seriously
consider other means of assessing student learning more systematically. The College had been aware
of the advantages of such efforts before 2001. During academic year 2000–2001, the College
developed its current Strategic Plan (Doc 03a-1. CMC Strategic Plan: A Vision for 2002–2012, 03-1502). As part of the planning process, a subcommittee of the Strategic Planning Committee was created
to focus on curricular matters including assessment of student learning. Chaired by Professor Stephen
Davis, the Committee completed its work in the Spring of 2001. (Doc 03a-2. Strategic Plan 2001 Curriculum Final Report) The Committee developed a set of general student learning goals for the
College’s curriculum. The context established for the goals was that CMC would continue to provide
students with “an outstanding liberal arts education, one that emphasizes public affairs and leadership,
20 of 34
and helps them to achieve academic excellence and to become leaders in the various professions that
they enter.” The Committee determined that the basic “aim” or goal of a CMC education is to teach
CMC students “transferable abilities ─ analytic skills, independent thinking, and ability to make
sensitive value judgments ─ that will help them to lead meaningful lives that are of service to
themselves and others in our rapidly changing and diverse world. Following upon these transferable
abilities, the Committee identified seven “certain characteristics,” (or learning outcomes) that
graduates of the College should possess. These seven characteristics were:
Intellectual Breadth. Graduates should be broadly educated through a coherent, diversified,
well-balanced curriculum in the humanities, the social sciences, the natural sciences, and
Intellectual Depth. Graduates should be well educated in at least one major field of study.
Character and Integrity. Graduates should be persons of humaneness and integrity, aware of
and influenced by ethical and moral issues both of a personal and a public nature.
Critical Thinking Skills. Graduates should be able to think clearly, critically, and
constructively about intellectual and practical problems, and thus be able to reach rational
conclusions. They should also understand the scientific method and be skilled at quantitative
Communication Skills. Graduates should be able to read and listen carefully, and to express
themselves clearly, coherently, and convincingly, both orally and in writing.
Leadership and Interpersonal Skills. Graduates should be able to exercise responsible
leadership in all areas of life, and especially in their chosen careers, as well as to work
effectively with others as members of a team.
Technological Literacy. Graduates should be capable of using appropriate technology tools
that are relevant to their fields of study and careers.
The members of the Strategic Planning Committee on the Curriculum felt that the general education
courses of the CMC curriculum were the means to accomplish the outcome of intellectual breadth.
They believed the major courses were the locus of intellectual depth. These views still characterize
our thinking with respect to our assessment and evaluation plans.
While the College believes that the traditional means of assessing student learning in depth provide
valuable measures of student accomplishment, we also acknowledge the need to add different methods
of assessment to ensure that our students are achieving the specific outcomes we have set for them. In
2001, the Strategic Planning Committee on the Curriculum recognized this and indicated that the
College would need to identify means of ensuring that graduates were coming close to the seven
characteristics or learning outcomes established for the CMC curriculum. The Committee noted that
there were no “universally accepted metrics…to wield.” However, the members of the Committee did
note that a combination of external and internal measures could give a reasonably clear picture of
student learning at CMC. In terms of national surveys that would permit comparison with other
institutions, the Committee made reference to the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE).
The Committee recommended that CMC “explore using this instrument, and administer it, as designed,
to both freshmen and seniors.”
The College’s faculty and the Board of Trustees approved the Strategic Plan in 2002. However several
of the subcommittee’s recommendations on curricular matters were not included in the final report,
although a number were reviewed by committees set up to implement the Strategic Plan
recommendations. Although the faculty’s concerns with the recommendations of the Curricular Report
did not relate directly to the assessment of student learning, the fact that the recommendations were not
21 of 34
included in the final report meant that they were laid aside and no further action was taken. The issue
of assessing student learning was not actively pursued until the approaching reaffirmation of the
College by WASC which started with the requirement to submit a Proposal in 2007. The Dean of the
Faculty formed a WASC Steering Committee composed of faculty and administrators to guide the
reaffirmation effort and indicated that the development of a college-wide assessment and evaluation
program of student learning would be a major part of this reaffirmation activity.
Acting on this initiative, the College, under the leadership of Vice President for Student Affairs,
implemented the 2001 recommendation of the Strategic Planning Committee on the Curriculum and
arranged to administer the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) to CMC freshman and
senior students in the spring of 2008. The NSSE survey asks students a series of 85 questions divided
into 13 categories, including academic and intellectual experiences, mental activities, reading and
writing, interpersonal relationships, time usage, and overall satisfaction. The student responses of the
NSSE provide evidence relating to nearly all our student learning outcomes. The NSSE also permits
cross institutional comparisons with groups of other selected colleges and universities. (Doc 04e. NSSE
2008 Mean and Frequency Reports)
At the same time, the WASC Steering Committee began exploring the possibility of administering the
Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) survey as well and it was decided to administer the CLA to
freshmen and seniors in 2008–2009, through the auspices of the Office of the Dean of the Faculty.
(Doc 04d. CLA Fall 2008 Interim Report, Claremont McKenna College) The Steering Committee also
began the take another look at the results of another of its regular surveys, the Senior Survey developed
by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at UCLA, and focus specifically on the assessment
of student learning. (Doc 04c. 2006, 2007, 2008 Senior Survey (UCLA-HERI)) Thus by 2007–2008,
the College had identified three separate means of assessing student learning using nationally normed
means of assessment that would also permit comparison with other institutions of higher education. At
this point in time, we have administered and analyzed each of the three surveys and have gained
considerable experience in how to organize and encourage students to participate in the administration
of the surveys. Based on our experience to date, the WASC Steering Committee has decided to
administer each of these surveys on a three-year rotating basis. We completed the cycle this year and
will begin again with the Senior Survey in 2009–2010, the NSSE in 2010–2011, and the CLA in 2011–
It is the College’s intention to use the results of these three survey instruments to provide the
fundamental data to evaluate our overall or general student learning outcomes. We will also endeavor
to identify the senior thesis and other general courses including the Freshman Humanities Seminar that
can provide evidence of student general learning. Once again, turning to our 2001 Strategic Planning
Committee on the Curriculum’s Report, the WASC Steering Committee essentially adopted the work
of the 2001 Committee when it set the overall learning goals and the student learning outcomes
(SLOs). After slightly revising the Planning Committee’s work, the WASC Steering Committee
presented the goals to the College’s Curriculum Committee in the Fall of 2008. (Doc 06b-5. Agenda
Curriculum Committee 12-11-08, Committee WASC Document 12-11-08) The Committee endorsed the
goals and outcomes with one exception. The WASC Committee’s student learning outcomes contained
an outcome that addressed student Character and Integrity. The Curriculum Committee felt that while
such a goal was laudable it would prove to be difficult to develop an effective means of measuring
student achievement with respect to the goal and recommended it be deleted. In its subsequent review
of the goals, the Senior Staff voted to reintroduce an SLO on ethics and to add one on leadership. (Doc
06f-13. Senior Staff Meeting 2008-2009) This revised version of the goals and SLOs was sent to the
faculty. At its meeting on May 12, 2009, the faculty chose to delete the SLOs dealing with ethics and
leadership although there was support for conducting further study on means of assessing these two
areas of student learning. (Doc 6a-8. Faculty Meeting Agenda and Minutes 05-12-09) Finally, the
Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees approved the goals passed by the faculty and
22 of 34
directed that the faculty work to add SLOs on ethics and leadership in the coming fall. (Doc 6e-1.
Academic Affairs Committee Agenda and Minutes 05-15-09)
The formally adopted goals now read as follows:
The basic goals of a CMC education are to teach students transferable abilities including
analytic skills, communication skills, and critical thinking skills, and to impart intellectual
breadth and preparation for responsible leadership and citizenship through exposure to a variety
of academic disciplines
The formally adopted student learning outcomes are:
(1) Graduates will be able to analyze a particular issue, problem, or idea
in depth and consider its elements.
(2) Graduates will be able to express themselves clearly, coherently, and convincingly
both orally and in writing.
(3) Graduates will be able to complete projects that require integrating
ideas and information from various sources.
(4) Graduates will be able to effectively utilize information technology tools.
With the exception of the two SLOs on ethics and leadership, which will require further faculty
discussion, the College will move forward with evaluating how successful the College is in meeting
the basic goals and ensuring that our graduate meet the SLO’s. We will start to continue with the
collection of data and the evaluation and analysis of our data. In the first instance this will involve the
use of three means of assessment, including both direct (CLA) and indirect (NSSE and the Senior
Survey) means of assessment. While the results of the NSSE and Senior Survey are available to us, to
date we have only received the CLA results for our freshmen. We expect to receive the CLA s results
for seniors in the fall of 2009, at which time we will be able to evaluate the results of our assessment
testing. And as indicated before, the College will create a new faculty committee in the fall to serve as
the College’s permanent assessment and evaluation committee charged with evaluating the assessment
results and making recommendation to the faculty for improvements in the educational program where
needed or appropriate.
In the meantime, the results of the NSSE, and the Senior Survey have been made available to the
WASC Steering Committee, the Senior Staff, and the Board of Trustees. They will be provided to the
Faculty in the fall. The results of these two means of indirect assessment are very encouraging. In
comparing our students with those from Carnegie I institutions that also took the NSSE survey, results
from the four questions regarding SLO 1 analytic abilities, provide evidence that our students scored
more positively on each question among both freshmen and seniors than the national sample. In terms
of value added factors between the freshmen and seniors, the results were not statistically significant.
In terms of SLO 2, communication skills, our students scored better on six of the eight questions,
scoring lower than the national sample only on the number of drafts they completed prior to turning in
a final product and on making a class presentation. In terms of value added – between CMC freshmen
and seniors – there was a single statistically significant change showing that seniors contribute more
frequently to class discussions. With respect to SLO 3, synthesizing and integrating skills, CMC
freshmen and seniors scored higher on each of the eight questions than the national sample. In two
areas there was statistically significant value added between the freshman and senior years (putting
together idea or concepts from different courses in assignments and class discussions, and in learning
something that changed the way students understood an issue or topic). Finally, in terms of SLO 4,
23 of 34
CMC students scored more positively than Carnegie I students on each of the four questions, with a
statistically significant value added factor from freshmen to seniors on using an electronic medium to
discuss or complete an assignment. Thus, our students scored consistently more positively on 22 of 24
questions dealing with our four SLOs than a national sample of Carnegie I students at both the
freshman and senior levels. (Doc 04e. NSSE 2008 Mean and Frequency Reports) Despite the overall
positive writing self-evaluations, the faculty, based on observations of student written work, believe
that student writing needs further improvement. The Writing Center Director, Dr. Justin Young, is
developing plans for 2009–2010 for an enhanced College-wide effort to concentrate on improving
student writing.
We have also evaluated data from the Senior Survey as an additional means of assessing general
student learning. In terms of SLO 2, communications, CMC students rated their writing ability more
positively than students at all private 4-year colleges taking the survey. 73.4% of CMC students rated
their writing either above average or in the top 10%, while 61.8% of students at other colleges rated
their writing at the same levels. The Senior Survey provides data from two questions that relate to
SLO 4, information technology use and skills. 55.2% of CMC students rated themselves above
average or in the top 10% in computer skills, while 42.6% rated themselves similarly at other colleges.
85.3% of CMC students rated themselves above average or in the top 10% in terms of frequently or
occasionally using the internet for research for homework. This compares with a somewhat higher
figure of 88.9% for all other colleges’ students. In this instance, a somewhat lower use of the internet
for research purposes may be a positive finding. (Doc 04c-3. 2008 Senior Survey (UCLA – HERI))
Finally, the results from our freshman responses to the CLA indicate that our students did extremely
well on the test. On the performance task measuring synthesizing skills, recognizing conflicting
evidence, interpreting data, and reaching sound conclusions they scored at the 99th percentile. In the
make-an-argument part of the test they scored at the 98th percentile. On the critique-an-argument test
they scored at the 99th percentile. These scores suggest that in terms of SLOs 1 and 3 our students do
very well as entering freshmen. On the analytic writing task, which relates to SLO 2, our students
scored at the 99th percentile. Based on these performance levels it is difficult to imagine much value
added improvement can occur from the freshmen to senior year experience. (The CLA adjusts these
scores for levels of institutions and did so in our case. Unfortunately, there were only two other
comparable schools in the database. Thus, the adjusted scores are of little use.) (Doc 04d. CLA Fall
2008 Interim Report, Claremont McKenna College)
In our Proposal in May 2007, we indicated that we would begin collecting data with our entering
freshman class in 2008. We have accomplished that goal and have moved well beyond it in terms of
collecting data on seniors as well. We discussed the possibility of establishing an e-portfolio program
for assessment of student learning in our Proposal contingent upon faculty support and approval. That
has not happened. The faculty has chosen not to embark on such a program and will rely on the
national survey approach we have adopted which permits comparative analysis with other institutions
something that is not possible with an e-portfolio approach.
Student Learning Outcome Number One: Intellectual Depth
The College has asked each academic department to establish a core of overall educational goals and
specific student learning outcomes as the most effective means of evaluating our success in meeting
this outcome. We established March 1, 2009 as the deadline for completing this process. In addition,
we asked each academic department to determine means of assessing student progress in meeting the
learning outcomes set for the major by the end of the 2008–2009 academic year if possible. Having
established departmental goals and student learning outcomes, we will then be in a position to assess
student learning using these new procedures and eventually make changes in our major programs as
needed to improve student performance and learning. Every department has now established learning
24 of 34
goals for the program. Despite our projections, we have not yet fully reached the institutional goal
where every department has established SLOs and agreed upon means of assessment. The following
matrix presents the current state of this effort.
CMC Academic Department and Program Assessment
and Evaluation Program Status
May 2009
Means of Assessment
Robert Day
Econ &
M Fin Econ
Completed (3)
Completed (3)
Embed questions,
problem sets
Completed (3)
Completed (3)
Completed (4)
Completed (10)
Completed (4)
Completed (8)
Embed questions,
Theses, Oral Exams
Theses, exit survey
Incomplete (3)
Incomplete (6)
Mathematics &
Completed (5)
Completed (8)
Theses, writing samples
Theses, Orals, writing
Completed (3)
Thesis, embed questions,
Completed (8)
Joint Science
Gen Science
Completed (7)
Completed (8)
Theses, surveys,
Capstone seminar
Completed (3)
Completed (6)
Completed (6)
Completed (6)
Theses, Tests, Orals,
Writing Samples,
Projects, Grad
Completed (6)
Completed (5)
As one can ascertain from the matrix, 12 of the 15 departments and programs have completed the
development of their educational goals. Eight of the 15 have completed the development of their
student learning outcomes and 12 of the 15 have agreed on methods of assessing student learning
outcomes. Finally, the Joint Science Department, our joint science program with Scripps College and
Pitzer College, has also completed its Assessment Cycle, Evaluation of Results, and Use of Results
cycle for its general education science program. In terms of the general education science program
most of the department’s goals are being accomplished but efforts to encourage students to engage in
the reading of primary science literature need to be improved. Thus, we have made substantial progress
and are closing in on our goal of carrying out assessment activities in every department and program
during academic year 2009–2010. By 2010–2011, every department and program should have
evaluated the results of their assessment activities and use the results for program improvement. It is
worth noting that many departments have chosen to use the senior thesis, a required one- or twosemester capstone course in the major(s) as a major means of assessing student learning. These
25 of 34
assessments are likely to involve evaluation of the written research work and the conducting oral
exams or presentations, depending on the department involved. Senior theses can also be useful for
assessing general learning.
In addition to the departmental and program level assessments identified in the matrix above, the
College will use student responses to the 15 questions from NSSE to provide additional data on SLO 1,
learning in depth. The responses from the departmental assessments will be reviewed at the
departmental level for evaluation and program improvement purposes as the Joint Science Department
has already begun to do. The Curriculum Committee and the WASC Steering Committee will evaluate
the NSSE results in terms of general education in the Fall semester.
26 of 34
Essay on Theme 2: Planning for Growth
In our Proposal, we indicated that we planned to provide a final master planning document to the
Board of Trustees during 2010, and we are on schedule to accomplish this goal. We also indicated that
the plan we develop would need to provide answers to questions such as:
What will be the scale and scope of additional physical facilities needed? We have hired a
planning firm to assist us in exploring the scale and quantity of new facilities.
What staffing additions will be needed and in what areas of the College? We have begun to
explore the nexus between the present financial conditions and the need to add staff and
What faculty additions will be needed and in what disciplines and programs? Based on our
last iteration of growth, we have a good perspective on the numbers of faculty and their
disciplines, but have not decided that we need to retain an 8:1 student faculty ratio.
What additional financial resources will be needed and in what areas of operations? This
question must be answered subsequent to the answers regarding staffing increases.
What changes in educational effectiveness, curricular offerings, and pedagogy may be
needed? Based on our prior growth efforts, we do not see much change in these areas.
What changes in our campus milieu will occur? This is an unknown, but is of importance to
many in the CMC community. Prior experience with growth suggests that it will not have a
major effect.
What are the central arguments for and against growth? The major arguments for growth are
to be found in the current size of the College which restricts program and curricular size.
Being one of the smallest highly selective colleges is not seen as an advantage and places us
in a competitive disadvantage in terms of admissions. Finally, we have a robust applicant pool
that would permit us to easily enroll more students without compromising student quality.
The major arguments against growth are its perceived effect on the culture of the College.
We have dealt with these questions over the last two years and in doing so reinforced our notion that
the Capacity and Preparatory Review and Educational Effectiveness Review plans are deeply
intertwined. Since we had so much to accomplish in terms of student learning outcomes, an in-depth
exploration of our faculty, staff, and financial capacity to accomplish our goal of creating a
comprehensive assessment program was essential to ensure we possessed adequate resources to
accomplish the task. This was also true with respect to institutional growth; many of the questions to
be resolved in our master planning efforts are contingent on developing a student learning environment
and vice versa. Thus, the stimulus of the Capacity and Preparatory Review provided a timely and
structured process for collecting the data and conducting the analysis needed to complete both of our
thematic studies.
Context for the Issue of Enrollment Growth at CMC
Although enrollment growth is an important issue at most colleges and universities, it is a particularly
important (and sensitive) issue at Claremont McKenna College. CMC was founded as part of The
Claremont Colleges Consortium, which is an intentionally designed consortium of purposefully small
undergraduate and graduate institutions. Among the central objectives of The Claremont Colleges are
27 of 34
(a) To maintain in each of the colleges the personalized instruction and the other educational
advantages inherent in small colleges, and, therefore, to maintain colleges and other educational
institutions of limited enrollment. Constitution of The Claremont Colleges, Article II, Sections 2
and 5 (revised in April 2000). (Doc 07-d. Constitution of The Claremont Colleges)
(b) Member institutions shall remain small and that the intimate and personal relationships
characteristic of the small institutions shall remain inviolate. Because of the shared services and
activities, the number of students in any member institution is a matter of common concern to all
the members. As a guideline, no member should enroll more than 35% of the total full time
equivalent enrollment of The Claremont Colleges. Constitution - See Article V, Section 1. (Doc
07d. Constitution of The Claremont Colleges)
Based on these Constitutional provisions, the current “in Claremont” enrollment limitations have been
established for each of the Colleges:
Pomona – 1800
CMC – 1400
Harvey Mudd – 800
Pitzer – 1000
Scripps – 1000
CGU – 1600
KGI – 400
In addition to size limitations, CMC also must consider its focused academic mission to provide a
“liberal arts education that emphasizes economics and political science.” Each of the institutions
making up The Claremont Colleges has a somewhat particularized mission by design in order to avoid
the challenge of being composed of identical, competing institutions. The question of growth at CMC
is therefore embedded with the question of the development of academic programs at the College
(whether we are strengthening our mission or whether we are losing our focus, etc.). Founded in 1946,
CMC is still a very young institution, and it has experienced growth and evolution in virtually every
decade of its existence. At the same time, although all members of the College community are
committed to CMC’s mission as a small highly selective, independent, coeducational, residential,
undergraduate liberal arts college, the College has never established a common vision for an “optimal”
size for the College. Finally, in contrast to institutions that are more dependent on tuition revenue and
need to grow to expand their financial resources, CMC benefits from the ability to choose not to grow.
This is not to argue that at CMC the question of growth does not raise concerns regarding the impact
on institutional resources and the overall quality of a CMC education. The impact on the College’s
high endowment per student (at least during the growth transition period) is a particular concern in this
The Current Status of the Growth Issue at CMC
Growth was a central focus of the College’s 1993 Strategic Plan, in which the College set forth the
following core objective:
“The College can best advance the fulfillment of its mission by carefully planned growth to
approximately 1000 students by the year 2000. To ensure the benefits that enlargement can
produce, the following long-term constraints are established:
No dilution in the overall quality standards for admitted students
No dilution in the student/faculty ratio
No dilution of financial base of endowment per student
The constraints are established to ensure that the pace of growth does not diminish quality.”
28 of 34
The College was successful in meeting these growth objectives and conditions by the year 2000. But
when the College entered its strategic planning process in 2000, the College was still “absorbing” the
impacts of this growth. At the time, further growth was recognized as a sensitive issue within the CMC
community with significant perceived financial implications, and the College decided not to actively
address the question of growth in its 2002 Strategic Plan. Instead, the College’s Strategic Plan
provides: “That the College will maintain its current goal of enrolling 1,000 students in Claremont.
The Plan does not include any recommendation with respect to future growth leaving the issue in the
hands of the Board of Trustees. (Doc 03a-1. Strategic Plan: A Vision for 2002–2012, 03-15-02)
In 2005, the Board of Trustees revisited the question of growth and agreed to grow from approximately
1,000 students in Claremont to approximately 1,125 students in Claremont. The Board authorized this
incremental growth at its meeting in October 2005, based on the following principal reasons:
(1) Financial Resources. Even prior to the completion of the strategic planning process, the
College was beginning to experience the major financial challenges associated with the
significant decline in the College’s endowment. As a result, the College was focused on both
maximizing the effectiveness of all revenue sources, as well as on minimizing or reducing
expenses. The College therefore evaluated the optimal size of the College relative to its
existing physical and human resources (with the exception of the dormitory and apartment
space and incremental faculty growth necessary to maintain CMC’s student-faculty ratio). This
analysis confirmed that increasing the target enrollment to approximately 1,100 FTE students
in Claremont resulted in a significant positive financial impact. In short, this incremental level
of growth represented a prudent financial strategy of spreading our existing fixed costs across a
larger number of students.
(2) Student Selectivity and Shaping the Class. The College had also experienced a significant
increase in its already high selectivity since 2002. In particular, the number of freshman
applications increased from approximately 3,000 in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s to a level
of 3,500 in 2004 and to over 3,700 applications in 2005. CMC’s rate of admission had
correspondingly fallen from approximately 30% to below 20%. The College was therefore
confident increasing the size of the student body to 1,100 students in Claremont would
strengthen the overall quality of the class and would also provide more flexibility in the
College’s efforts to shape the overall class.
(3) Academic and Teaching Resources. The enrollment increase to 1,100 also enabled the
College to proportionately increase the size of the faculty by 8-9 core faculty members in order
to maintain the College’s then student-faculty ratio of 9:1.
(4) Ongoing Need to Strengthen Alumni Base. The Board also recognized that the small size and
relative youth of the College’s alumni base places the College at a significant comparative
disadvantage in comparison to our peer colleges. Thus, responsible growth enables the College
to deepen the impact our mission through our graduates, and is also a vitally important to the
long-term comparative financial strength of the College.
(5) Growth to Approximately 1,100 FTE Students and Campus Intimacy. Apart from potential
concerns about the implications of growth with respect to an institution’s financial position and
student selectivity, maintaining CMC’s campus intimacy is perhaps the most significant
concern associated with growth. The Board did not view that the growth to 1,100 students in
Claremont would have any material impact on campus intimacy and the residential campus.
Important factors included our ability to maintain a single dining facility, and the creation of a
new residential hall that would be designed to strengthen our residential life model.
(Doc 06d-15 & 14. Board of Trustees Minutes 09-30-05 & 10-01-05, 11-30-05)
29 of 34
At the same time that the Board decided to pursue incremental growth in October 2005, it also
unanimously decided that the College should be master planning based on a potential enrollment of
1,400 students in Claremont. The Board was not making a decision to grow, but was recognizing that
there was a strong basis of support for continuing to consider this issue and that the College therefore
needed to base its land use and master planning work on the potential for future growth. Based on this
decision, the College made a request to purchase additional land from the Claremont University
Consortium in the spring of 2006, which land was necessary to acquire in order for the College to be
able to secure the potential for growth to 1,400 students in Claremont. The CUC approved this land
purchase request in April 2006 and negotiations are continuing for the final purchase. In combination,
our new residence hall, Claremont Hall, the Kravis Center, the East Campus land purchase, and the
relocation of the tennis courts have laid the foundation for a transformation of the College’s campus
and made the topic of master planning a central priority for the Board of Trustees.
During 2007 through 2008, CO Architects was engaged by the College to develop an updated master
plan of buildings and grounds for internal use. The process was primarily managed through the
Buildings and Grounds Committee of the Board of Trustees (B&G), and the primary purpose was to
sort through building location questions, particularly related to a fitness and athletic center and a
potential new campus center. Concurrently with the work by CO Architects, the B&G also engaged in
a process to develop a Statement of Master Plan Beliefs and Principles that were intended to guide the
future development of the College. The Statement was approved by the Buildings and Grounds
Committee in April 2008. The topic of master planning and growth was a key topic at the Board of
Trustees meeting on September 28–29, 2007. (Doc 06d-8. Board of Trustees Agenda and Minutes 0928-07 & 09-29-07) The meeting included a presentation by President Gann on the topic of growth.
(Doc 6d-8. Board of Trustees September 2007 Strategic Indicators on Growth) The President
emphasized that while financial considerations are important, growth must be tied to an overall
strategic plan to strengthen and improve the College.
By 2008–2009, it became clear that future development at the College would require the submission of
a formal master plan to the City of Claremont. The “financial crisis” that erupted in the summer / fall
of 2008 also re-focused the College on the question of potential growth, and the College presented
several possible growth scenarios to the Board of Trustees for preliminary review. It also became clear
during 2008–2009 that the College needed to update its strategic plan. Key elements such as mission,
strategic goals, etc, remain consistent, but the College has already accomplished many of the
“priorities” outlined in the 2002 plan. In addition, the College’s internal and external environment had
evolved in many unforeseen ways since the Plan was adopted, which raise important questions
regarding how the College can continue to enhance it effectiveness in fulfilling its mission. Internal
examples include the new Robert Day Scholars Program, a new governance agreement for Joint
Science and external factors include the fact that the financial framework has been placed under
extraordinary stress as is the case at many other institutions. Even the perception of increasing
pressure to demonstrate the value and distinctiveness of the residential liberal arts model needs to be
considered. Thus, President Gann recommended, and the Board approved, initiating a streamlined
strategic planning process in 2009–2010. Growth will be a key strategic topic in this process (unlike
the 2002 strategic plan). An Ad Hoc Planning Committee has been formed consisting of the Vice
President for Planning, the Dean of the Faculty, the Treasurer, the Dean of Students, and the Dean of
Admissions. They will work over the summer of 2009 and make a report to the Board of Trustees in
October 2009. They will make a final report to the Board in February 2010. The Board will make a
final determination on growth plans for the next 5 to 10 years in either March 2010 or May 2010. (Doc
06d-3 & 21 & 22. Board of Trustees Academic Program Initiatives 03-13-09; 2002 Strategic Plan
Tracking Report 06-18-09; 2009–2010 Strategic Planning Framework 06-18-09)
30 of 34
Planning for Future Growth
As the foregoing background highlights, the College has reached an important juncture with respect to
its planning for future growth, and this timing aligns with the current WASC reaffirmation process.
The College anticipates that planning for future growth will be a central priority over the next several
years. Although the precise planning process has not been formalized, any planning process would
involve faculty, students, staff, and alumni. We anticipate that the planning process will take place
over a single year. In making any final determination to grow, the Board and the College will be
focused on a variety of issues that will all be central to the future of the College, including (but not
limited to):
1. Implications for Admission and Financial Aid
a. Selectivity, shape of the class, etc.
2. Implications for faculty and academic programs
a. Faculty development issues
b. Curricular development
3. Implications for Residential Life
a. Campus intimacy
b. Dining/Campus Center facilities
c. Residential Facilities
4. Campus Master Plan
a. Organization of Residential and Academic Program
b. Density / Open Space impacts
c. Parking and Circulation
5. Implications for Alumni and Development
6. Financial Impacts
a. Endowment per student
7. Impacts on the Consortium
8. Other Issues
We believe the resources of our Vice President for Planning, Office of Institutional Research, Office of
the Dean of Faculty, and various faculty and college committees, under the guidance of the Board of
Trustees, are sufficient to successfully carry out the planning effort we have recently agreed upon and
we will report on the results of this planning effort in our Educational Effectiveness Review.
31 of 34
We believe we have a “culture of evidence” revealing considerable progress at Claremont McKenna
College toward developing appropriate assessment and evaluation of student learning, and we expect
to ensure that we come into much greater compliance with the Standards. We believe that the process
of assessing student learning in new, more systematic ways has already enlivened the dialogue about
educational effectiveness on our campus, and as the results of data gathering become available this
dialogue will grow in strength and frequency.
Preparedness for the Educational Effectiveness Review (EER)
Our EER will provide the basis for a report on our efforts to evaluate the educational effectiveness of
our educational programs. In terms of our first theme, Assessing Student Learning, we will focus on
the progress we will have made in moving ahead with our plans to have a fully operational evaluation
and assessment program in place. As can be seen from the timetable in Section V below, we have
actually completed much of what we set out to do in our Proposal with the exception that we
accomplished it about twelve months later than we anticipated. However, the timetable we adopted in
our Proposal permits us to catch up during the next academic year, 2009–2010. We fully expect to do
so recognizing that there are always unanticipated hurdles along the way. Still, we have every reason
to believe that we will have established educational objectives for our students, assessed their
achievement of those goals and be able to demonstrate program alterations to improve effectiveness
where appropriate based on the results of our evaluation efforts. This will be accomplished both at the
general education level and at the departmental and program level.
Looking ahead, and based on the significant progress accomplished in the areas of both general
education assessment and departmental assessment, the Steering Committee now believes that it is
time to form a new Assessment Committee to take on the role of managing the College’s educational
assessment program. This Committee was envisioned in the College’s Proposal, and it is expected that
we will form the Committee in the Fall of 2009. The Assessment Committee, to be formed by the
Dean of Faculty, will include four or five faculty members, two staff members, and two students. The
Committee will be responsible for shepherding the overall educational effectiveness effort and will
make periodic reports to the Faculty at its monthly meetings on the results of the College’s general
education assessment and evaluation program. The Committee will be tasked, along with the
Curriculum Committee, with reviewing the results of the general education assessment and will
conduct evaluations of the overall student learning outcomes with the results being forwarded to the
Faculty for any needed program revisions. The Committee will also receive written progress reports
annually from each department on the program’s assessment and evaluation results. The Committee
will ensure that departments develop an appropriate plan for assessing SLOs and that they conduct
evaluation of the results on a systematic basis to ensure the program is accomplishing its intended
goals. The Committee will be responsible for monitoring departments to ensure that they carry out
their planned assessment and evaluation activities on a regular and sustained basis. The Assessment
Committee will provide the Dean and the Faculty with an annual report on the state of the College’s
assessment and evaluation program. The Assessment Committee will work closely with the WASC
Steering Committee which will be responsible for preparing the College’s Educational Effectiveness
32 of 34
We intend to meet our Proposal commitment by the end of our review process in the spring of 2011 to:
have every program fully engaged in evaluating progress towards specific educational goals
demonstrate the use of our assessment results to improve program delivery and educational
outcomes and
have the results of our assessments serve as an integral part of our external program review
process and
publish the results of our assessment and evaluation efforts with respect to student learning.
As we stated in our Proposal, accomplishing these goals will permit us to supplement our current
methods of evaluating student learning outcomes involving tests, papers, surveys, and class discussions
with additional methods of evaluation to be developed by faculty in various departments and programs.
We believe this effort will systematically involve the entire faculty in a deeper exploration of the
teaching and learning process that marks our educational program. The development of effective
measures of student learning will also position the College to be an active participant in the national
dialogue regarding institutional effectiveness, transparency, and quality assurance.
Remaining challenges are to evaluate the results of the assessment tools and reflect on how they may
assist us in program improvement. The first cycle will be completed by the end of 2009–2010. The
collection of assessment data by departments and programs will occur during 2009–2010 and the
evaluation of the results will follow in some cases during that year or, in others, in early 2010–2011.
This will permit the results to be used as part of the new cycle of external program reviews.
Our EER, due in spring 2011, will document the results of our efforts. We will include in the EER all
of our learning goals and student learning outcomes for general education and for major and program
purposes as well as the results of the assessment our evaluation of the results and any modifications for
program improvement. We will also report on the determination of assessment cycles from our
departments and programs. We have already determined on an annual cycle of rotation of surveys for
general education purposes with evaluation occurring every year. These combined efforts will move
the College a considerable distance towards fulfilling our obligations under CFRs 1.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6,
2.7, 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8.
As part of The Claremont Colleges Consortium, students have opportunities that are not usually
available on other campuses, such as intercampus agreements that make it easy for students to take
classes and even entire majors on other Claremont College campuses. In those cases, we rely on the
other colleges to develop appropriate assessment and evaluation programs under WASC guidance.
Neither CMC, nor its sister institutions, has yet determined a means of assessing consortium programs
over which no single institution has complete control. The exception to this is the Joint Science
program, in whose case we are developing an assessment and evaluation program that we intend to
serve Pitzer and Scripps colleges as well. Hopefully, we can initiate conversations with our sister
institutions in Claremont in 2010 or 2011 on possible methods of cooperating on assessing our
intercollegiate programs.
The practice of external program reviews is well established and valued at the College and increasingly
welcomed by the faculty. The next external review cycle to begin during 2009–2010 will require
departments to have completed their own assessment and evaluation cycle prior to the review so that
the results can be included in the self-study review completed prior to the external visiting team’s
arrival. This process will ensure a direct relationship between comprehensive student assessment and
evaluation and program reviews scheduled for the future thus meeting the terms of CFR 2.7 directly.
33 of 34
The newly created strategic planning effort that is just now underway will lead to a decision regarding
further institutional growth for the next five to ten years. A decision on further growth is expected to
be made in May 2010. Thus, we should be able to report on this decision in our EER. This process
will need to incorporate multiple constituencies in exploring challenging questions and institutional
resources in defining and choosing among future options, including the effects on student learning in
keeping with CFRs 4.1, 4.2. and 4.3.
Work Plan and Milestones for the Educational Effectiveness Review (EER)
In this section, we consider what steps must occur between our CPR and EER. Faculty, staff, and
Trustees will work closely with the Dean of the Faculty, the Assessment Committee, the Vice
President for Planning, Treasurer, Office of Institutional Research, Information Technology Services,
Student Services, the Curriculum Committee, and academic departments to move the process forward
to the EER.
July 2009 through January 2010:
Departments will conclude development of SLOs and means of assessment and, in some cases,
will begin assessment efforts.
Dean of Faculty will appoint Assessment Committee.
College will conduct Student Life Survey and CLA test and evaluate results
College will select general education courses that relate to SLOs
Ad-hoc Planning Committee will collect and analyze data from master planning surveys and
other sources.
Ad hoc Planning Committee will prepare final recommendation for Board of Trustees on
institutional growth.
January 2010 through June 2010:
Departments will analyze data and use results for program changes as appropriate.
Departments will document and archive any improvement histories.
Board of Trustees will consider master plan final recommendations and decide on institutional
Departments will decide on frequency of assessment activities.
July 2010 through January 2011:
Board of Trustees and college administration will work on implementation of any decision to
grow the College.
Departments will continue to conduct assessments and evaluate results with the intention of
program improvement.
College will prepare EER for Visiting Committee.
Initial departments chosen for external review will prepare self-study reports.
January 2011 through June 2011:
College will send EER and receive Visiting Team.
Departments will continue next iterations of assessment and evaluation including assessment of
utility of methods chosen.
34 of 34
Appendix I: Required Data Elements
The Western Association of Schools and Colleges requires that institutions submit a prescribed set
of exhibits and data displays as part of a larger portfolio of evidence that they submit as part of the
Capacity and Preparatory Review. The intent of this requirement is to move the process of
accreditation toward more visible reliance on concrete evidence and allow the accreditation decision
to be a more informed decision.
Claremont McKenna College has reviewed the required data elements under eight substantive
categories of data. Each ‘data element’ consists of a basic array of data about a distinct
characteristic of the College and, in combination, these data elements portray a de facto “Fact Book”
of Claremont McKenna College. This document is provided separately.
Section 1. Admissions and Student Preparation
Data Exhibit 1.1 Admissions Activities by Level
Data Exhibit 1.2 Preparation/Selectivity Levels of Entering Students
Data Exhibit 1.3 Admission by Gender
Data Exhibit 1.4 Admissions by Race/Ethnicity
Section 2. Student Enrollments
Data Exhibit 2.1 Headcount Enrollments by Degree Objective
Data Exhibit 2.2 Headcount Enrollments by Gender
Data Exhibit 2.3 Headcount Enrollments by Race/Ethnicity
Data Exhibit 2.4 Students Receiving Financial Aid
Section 3. Degrees Awarded
Data Exhibit 3.1 Degrees Granted by Degree-Level and Program
Section 4. Faculty and Staff Composition
Data Exhibit 4.1 Faculty Composition
Data Exhibit 4.2 Faculty Headcount by Department/Program
Data Exhibit 4.3 Staff by Gender and Race/Ethnicity
Data Exhibit 4.4 Full-time Faculty and Staff Turnover During the Last 5 Years
Section 5. Fiscal Resources
Data Exhibit 5.1b Sources of Revenue: Private Institutions
Data Exhibit 5.2b Operating Expenditures: Private Institutions
Data Exhibit 5.3b Private Institutions Assets and Liabilities
Data Exhibit 5.4 Capital Investments/ Valuations
Data Exhibit 5.5 Endowment Values and Performance
Section 6 Institutional Operating Efficiency
Data Exhibit 6.1 Key Undergraduate Educational Operations Ratios
Data Exhibit 6.2 Key Asset and Maintenance Ratios
Data Exhibit 6.3 Key Financial Ratios
Section 7. Educational Effectiveness Indicators
Data Exhibit 7.1 Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators
Section 8. Concurrent Accreditation and Key Performance Indicators
Data Exhibit 8.1 Inventory of Concurrent Accreditation and Key Performance Indicators
1 of 10
Appendix II: Stipulated Policies
WASC requires that an institution publish and make publicly available policies in force as identified
by the Commission. The Claremont McKenna College policies referred to in the body of this report
are specifically noted here in this appendix.
Institutional Integrity
A widely disseminated, written policy statement of commitment to integrity and academic freedom in
teaching, learning, research, publication, and oral presentation: Faculty Handbook 4.1-2; Statement On
Harassment, Free Speech, And Academic Freedom; Statement of Academic Integrity
Due process procedures that demonstrate faculty and students are protected in their quest for truth:
Faculty Handbook 3.4; Students' Right of Access to the Academic Standards Committee and Appeal to
the Dean of the Faculty, Academic Standards Committee
Written policies on due process and grievance procedures for faculty, staff and students: Faculty
Handbook 4.4, Staff Grievance Policy, and website on grievances specific to students.
A clear statement of institutional policies, requirements, and expectations to current and prospective
employees: Human Resources Policy Website
Institutionally developed and published non-discrimination, equal opportunity, and affirmative action
policies, including individuals with Disabilities: Statement On Non-Discrimination, Equal Employment
Opportunity, And Related Laws
Clearly written policies on conflict of interest for board, administration, faculty, and staff, including
appropriate limitations on the relations of business, industry, government, and private donors to
research in the institution: Faculty Handbook 10.2; for Board of Trustees policy, see Additional
Explicit and equitable faculty personnel policies and procedures: Faculty Handbook Chapter 3:
Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure
Policies on salaries and benefits: Human Resources Benefits Website
Policies for faculty and staff regarding privacy and accessibility of information: Policy on Use of Internet
Services and Network Resources
Policies on student rights and responsibilities, including the rights of due process and redress of
grievances: Academic Standards Committee
Publications that include policies and rules defining inappropriate student conduct: Basic Rule of
Student Conduct
2 of 10
Appendix III: Additional Documentation
1. Reaccreditation
a. WASC Letter of Reaccreditation March 10, 2000
b. Institutional Proposal for Reaffirmation of Accreditation, May 15, 2007
c. Approval of Proposal by WASC, July 5, 2007
e. WASC Data Exhibits for CPR Review
2. Substantive Change
a. WASC Substantive Change Proposal for RDS MA in Finance 20082011, 09-16-08
b. WASC Substantive Change C Action Report for RDS MA in Finance,
c. WASC Structural Change C Approval for RDS MA in Finance, 03-19-09
d. RDS Addendum Response to WASC Approval 04-21-09
3. CMC Planning
a. 1. CMC Strategic Plan: A Vision for 2002-2012, March 15, 2002
CMC Strategic Plan 2002 Appendix VI
2. CMC Strategic Plan 2001 – Curriculum Final Report
CMC Master Plan, December 14, 1993
c. CMC Strategic Indicators Report 2008
d. 1. CMC Fact Book 2007
2. CMC Fact Book 2008
4. Evaluations
1. CMC Student Life Survey Results 2006
2. CMC Student Life Survey Results 2007
b. 1. Freshman Survey (UCLA – HERI) 2006
2. Freshman Survey (UCLA – HERI) 2007
3. Freshman Survey (UCLA) – HERI) 2008
c. 1. Senior Survey (UCLA – HERI) 2006
2. Senior Survey (UCLA – HERI) 2007
3. Senior Survey (UCLA – HERI) 2008
d. CLA (Collegiate Learning Assessment) Fall 2008 Interim Report – CMC
e. NSSE (National Survey of Student Engagement) 2008 Mean and
Frequency Reports
CMC Alumni Survey Summary 02-16-09
g. IPEDS Data Feedback Report 2008
3 of 10
5. Academic Review
a. Proposals for New (or Revised) Courses (see also Curriculum
Committee and Faculty Meeting Materials)
FHS 10. Problems in the History of Christianity
Fin 306. Asset Pricing and Derivatives
Hist 185. Junior Seminar
Biol 83jt. Science, Management and Technology:
Phys 79L. Energy and the Environment
b. Course Evaluation
1. Student Opinion Survey (Course Evaluation Form and scantron)
2. Individual Averages Spring 2009 (sample)
3. Departmental Averages Spring 2009 (sample)
4. College Average Spring 2009
c. Programs:
1. External Review Guidelines (May 2000)
2. Overview of the Department of Economics
3. Assessment of the CMC Economics and Economics Major, April
4. CMS (Joint Department) Athletics Self-Study for External Review
5. CMS External Review Report
6. CMS Summary of External Review Recommendations
7. CMC Response to External Review
8. Board of Trustees - Research Institute Survey Report, 2005
d. Student Learning Outcomes Examples:
1. Literature Department Learning Goals 2009
2. Robert Day School (RDS) Learning Goals 04-21-09
e. Faculty:
1. (Sample Miller) Promotion and Tenure Report from Department
2. (Sample Williams) Promotion and Tenure Letter from Outside
3. (Sample Williams) Promotion and Tenure Report from Department
6. Committees
a. Faculty Meeting: Pertinent Materials from 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09
b. Curriculum Committee: Sample Materials from 2008-09
c. Appointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee (APT): Sample Materials
4 of 10
d. Board of Trustees (BOT): Pertinent Agendas and Minutes 2005-06,
2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 including:
1. CMC General Education Assessment Goals
and Learning Outcomes (May 14, 2009)
2. Academic Programming Initiatives (March 13, 2009)
5. Conflict of Interest Policies (March 14, 2008)
6. Globalization at CMC (March 14, 2008)
6. Achieving CMC’s Commitment to International
Education (March 14, 2008)
8. Strategic Indicators Related to Growth (September 28, 2007)
21. 2002 Strategic Plan Tracking Report (June 18, 2009)
22. 2009-2010 Strategic Planning Framework (June 18, 2009)
26. Governance Questionnaires, 2002, 2004
30. BOT 2008-09 Annual Board Composition and Profile
e. Academic Affairs Committee (of the Board of Trustees): Pertinent
Agendas and Minutes 2008-09, including
5. AAC Annual Report to Board of Trustees, 04-30-09
6. Projects and Objectives 2008-09
f. Senior Staff: Sample Materials from 2008-09
7. Goals Senior Staff Members
20. Organizational Chart
12. CV’s Vice Presidents
g. Diversity Committee: Sample Agendas 2008-09
4. Invitation to Faculty and Staff to Apply for Mini-Grant 04-27-07
5. Diversity and the Mission of Claremont McKenna College
(Faculty Meeting 04-27-07)
h. Administration Committee: Sample materials 2006-07. 2007-08, 2008-09
(for details and decisions, see Faculty Meeting materials)
7. Miscellaneous
a. New Faculty Orientation, 2008
b. New Faculty Workshop (intercollegiate), 2009
c. Marian Miner Cook Athenaeum Programs 2006, 2007, 2008
d. Constitution of The Claremont Colleges
e. Claremont Singapore Proposal – Ministry of Education, March 2009
5-Year Financial Model
g. Preliminary Campaign Progress Report May 6, 2009
5 of 10
Appendix IV: Response to Previous WASC Accreditation
A. Recommendations of the Previous WASC Re-accreditation March 10, 2000
As noted in our Proposal, the Commission’s letter to President Gann of March 10, 2000 (Doc 01a.
WASC Letter of Reaccreditation, March 10, 2000) identified six visiting team recommendations
including (1) balancing the liberal arts with the College’s special focus; (2) continuing its efforts to
develop an educational outcomes and assessment program and enhancing institutional research
capacity; (3) developing a culture and mechanisms for enhanced faculty governance; (4) giving
increased attention to diversity among the Board and faculty and to the experience of women, minority
students, faculty, and staff; (5) giving greater attention to program reviews and external reviewers; and
(6) making greater use of the consortium of The Claremont Colleges. In addition, the Commission
“highlighted three areas warranting special attention,” several of which emanate from the six
recommendations. The three areas are educational effectiveness, diversity, and faculty governance.
(1) The Commission urged the College to “manage its major dilemma of balancing the broader liberal
arts (especially in the humanities) with the special focus on government, business, and the
professions.” While the College would not concur entirely with the assertion that the balance between
its principle academic emphasis and the humanities is a “major dilemma,” we concede this is an
important situation to monitor. We can point to the establishment of our new Freshman Humanities
Program, creation of an Arabic language program, and the establishment of separate departments of
Philosophy and of Religious Studies as examples that we do not undervalue the Humanities. We also
note our success in recruiting away from Harvard University the internationally renowned author
Jamaica Kincaid. Professor Kincaid will assume the Josephine Olph Weeks Chair in our Literature
Department in the Fall of 2009, and she will launch a major writing initiative for our students as a
tenured full professor of Literature. And, as noted in our Proposal, the program of the Marian Miner
Cook Athenaeum (MMCA) remains a unique bridge linking the liberal arts and our special mission.
(Doc 07c. 2006–2007, 2007–2008, and 2008–2009 MMCA Programs) This program brings
distinguished speakers and programs to the campus four nights a week and encourages student, faculty,
and staff interaction over a meal. The MMCA also encourages faculty to meet with their students over
lunch or dinner in one of smaller private dining rooms and provides opportunities for many other
student-oriented events during the week. The Athenaeum program is highly important to a majority of
our students – 89% of 480 students responding to a question in our Spring 2007 Student Life Survey
rated the Athenaeum program important or very important. (Doc 04a-2. Student Life Survey Results
2007) In the last three years, it has included programs with 17 historians, 15 authors (including Gore
Vidal and two Nobel Laureates, Orhan Pamuk and Shirin Ebadi), 8 poets (including Lawrence
Ferlinghetti, Billy Collins and Bei Dao), as well as 20 concerts and 11 theater productions in addition
to programs that serve our special mission.
(2) The second recommendation relates to student learning outcomes and the establishment of a
comprehensive assessment and evaluation program that “must be continued, expanded, and
institutionalized.” In its letter, “The Commission encourages the College…to create a system for
assessment that fits the particular ethos and resources of [CMC]…account[ing] for identifying student
learning outcomes, assessing learning against those outcomes, regularly reviewing the effectiveness of
program curriculum and pedagogy, and cycling the results from assessment and program review into
efforts for improvement in curriculum and pedagogy.” We completely concur with this
recommendation. Creating a system of assessment has been a very important area for the College and
6 of 10
in as much as this is the topic of one of our two themes for our Capacity and Preparatory Review, we
have sought to address this in depth via our Essay on Theme 1: Assessing Student Learning.
(3) The Commission also urged the College to seek “continued commitment to full faculty
participation in governance.” This recommendation was crafted at the end of a nearly thirty-year long
presidency marked by strong presidential leadership. The faculty now is clearly responsible for the
oversight of the academic program, including the approval of all new courses and programs and faculty
personnel matters through its standing Committees and its monthly meetings. (See Agenda and other
materials of the Faculty Meeting (Doc 06a), the Curriculum Committee (Doc 06b) and the
Appointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee (Doc 06c). President Gann has utilized the elected
Administration Committee of the Faculty as a principal sounding board for new initiatives and has
brought important issues to it for dialogue and decision following the announcement of the Robert Day
gift. (Doc 06h 1 through 6. Administration Committee Agendas 05-05-09; 02-18-09; 02-03-09; 04-1708; 12-11-07) The President also has sought faculty advice and counsel by means of special meetings
with all interested faculty during the Globalization initiative (see above) and provided for dialogues
between faculty and Trustees at the 2008 Board retreat. (Doc 06d-6. Board of Trustees Agenda and
Minutes, 03-14-08) During 2008–2009, she has used a number of informal sessions with faculty to
discuss the implications of the recent financial downturn and its effects on the College’s financial
situation to ensure that faculty have an appreciation for the institution’s position and the opportunity to
make recommendations on how to address it.
(4) The Commission identified diversity as an area that requires persistent efforts, and encouraged
“giving attention to the experience of women faculty and students from ‘minority’ backgrounds.” The
Commission recommended that, “CMC regularly assess the culture of the campus in terms of the
extent to which it welcomes and supports diverse populations of students, staff and faculty.” The
College accepts the importance of this recommendation, and has attended to numerous issues of
concern to women faculty. For example, in 2007, after a number of women faculty expressed concern
regarding the existing parental leave policy, the College adopted a new family friendly parental leave
policy. The College has also adopted a new Back-up Care Program sought by women faculty and
administrators as an important new benefit to provide assistance at home so employees can be at work
when dependents need care.
The Board of Trustees and the Faculty confirmed their awareness of the need to encourage diversity
when the College adopted a new Diversity Statement (Doc 6a-11. Faculty Meeting Agenda and
Minutes 4-10-07) and added the following paragraph at the end of our Mission Statement in the
Faculty Handbook: “To execute our mission, we seek to enroll a diverse student body, to recruit a
diverse faculty and staff, and to place great value on respect for differences.”
As indicated in our Proposal, the College regularly assesses the culture on the campus regarding
diversity issues through the Student Life Survey, most recently conducted in 2007. (Doc 4a-2. Student
Life Survey Results 2007) The findings indicate that only 5.1% of 466 students responding disagreed
with the statement that faculty at CMC treat students fairly regardless of their ethnicity/race. A total of
9.7% percent disagreed with the statement that students at CMC treat other students fairly regardless of
their ethnicity/race. Moreover, nearly a quarter of those responding disagreed with the statement that
the CMC campus is free of tension related to ethnicity/race, and 14% indicated that they had
personally experienced discrimination at CMC because of their ethnicity/race. While we are not
pleased with this percentage, we believe these statistics may partially stem from the fact that we house
students in far more diverse residence halls than is typically the case in comparable institutions. For
example, 65.8% of our seniors in the 2008 Senior Survey indicated they had had a roommate of a
different race or ethnicity. (Doc 4c-3. 2008 Senior Survey (UCLA-HERI)) By contrast, only 35.9% in
all other private four-year colleges reported having had a roommate of a different race. Data from the
7 of 10
2008 Senior Survey indicated that the same percentage of respondents who experienced personalized
discrimination, 14%, felt that there was a lot of racial tension on campus. This figure is similar to the
16.9% reported at all other four year private colleges. Of particular interest are data that demonstrate
that our students are far more likely to come into contact with students of different racial and ethnic
groups either in social settings: 78.6% at CMC, compared to 44% at all other private four-year
colleges, 81.6% at meals at CMC, compared to just 48.2% elsewhere, and through studying together
(65.5% at CMC, compared with 39.2% at all other private four-year colleges). The close contacts
clearly provide far greater opportunities for “meaningful and honest discussions about racial/ethnic
relations,” which is reflected in the same study: 65.6 % of CMC seniors reported such discussions,
compared with just 34.3% at all other four-year private colleges. Nevertheless, these mitigating factors
aside, Claremont McKenna College will continue to develop programs aggressively to ensure that our
campus is a welcoming environment for all students. One means we seek to popularize are various
orientation programs and other efforts sponsored by the Diversity Committee and the Office of the
Dean of Students, the College. Thus far, our Senior Survey of 2008 indicates that 19.2% of our seniors
had participated in a racial/cultural awareness workshop, compared with 25.5% of seniors in all other
private four-year colleges. We believe we can and should increase our student participation in these
workshops. (Doc 6g-1 & 2 & 3. Diversity Committee Agendas 10-13-08; 11–21-08; 2-19-09; Doc 04c3. 2008 Senior Survey (UCLA – HERI))
Our current faculty is also not as diverse as we would like in terms of race and ethnicity. (See Essay on
Standard 1: Defining Institutional Purposes and Ensuring Educational Objectives.) However, our
faculty has grown more diverse in some other respects that are important to us and our mission. In
2002, twelve members of our faculty were foreign born, providing an international perspective in the
classroom and elsewhere on campus. By 2007–2008, the figure had more than doubled to 25. Further,
in 2007–2008 over 70% of our courses contained international components, especially in history,
government, languages, and literature. (Doc 06d-6. Board of Trustees “Globalization at CMC,” March
The Athenaeum (see above) has also been a valuable resource adding to our attention to diversity. In
the last three years, we have sponsored seven programs on women’s issues, eight programs on
Judaism, Islam, and Indian faiths, nine Latino programs including music and art, nine Afro-American
programs including presentations by Tavis Smiley, Julian Bond, Jamaica Kinkaid, and Henry Gates, Jr.
(5) The College is pleased to report that it has made substantial progress in the area of external
program reviews since the submission of our Proposal. As we indicated in our Proposal, the College
has designed “a review process that will add value to programs and contribute to their organizational
learning about curricular design and pedagogy.” At this time, we have completed the external reviews
of all our academic departments, together with some other programs. We plan to reactivate the cycle
of external reviews in 2010–2011 and complete them over a five to six year period.
(6) Finally, the Commission recommended that “The Claremont consortium has significant untapped
potential for students and faculty that should be optimized.” As noted in our Proposal, the College
makes active use of the Consortium at a level that maintains a balance with our sister institutions in
Claremont. By this we mean that there is an active effort in Claremont to ensure that no institution
depends too heavily on the others to support its students or academic programs. However, within those
parameters, CMC actively seeks means of creating new opportunities within the Consortium for all
students. Recent examples include the addition of the CMC Arabic language program with
introductory language courses open to all students of the Consortium, and a new joint position for the
department of Black Studies, one of several intercollegiate departments offering courses on behalf of
all The Claremont Colleges. Further, several general science courses developed jointly by CMC and
the Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences – the newest member of the Consortium – were
8 of 10
first offered in the 2009 Spring semester, and they will be continued in 2009–2010. (Doc 06a-7.
Faculty Meeting Agenda and Minutes, 10–24-08) The Joint Science Department has also recently
added a set of team-taught courses offered jointly by a member of the JSD and a faculty member of the
Western University of Health Sciences in nearby Pomona (Biology 150L a, b). One of the newest
programs has been made possible through the Robert A. Day gift. Qualified juniors from all the
undergraduate colleges in Claremont are invited to apply for the Robert Day Scholars Program for
Undergraduates. Known as Robert Day Scholars, the students each receive a merit scholarship toward
tuition in their senior year and access to special workshops and a career consultant. And finally, as
noted in our Essay on Standard 3: Engaging the Environment and Ensuring Sustainability, The
Claremont Colleges have developed a joint orientation program for new incoming faculty to help new
arrivals to learn more about faculty life in Claremont and especially the unique structure of and
opportunities provided by the consortium. The program also helps to build bridges among new faculty
members and encourages intercollegiate cooperation, which is very important for cross-registration of
students and strengthening the many intercollegiate programs and majors.
B. Progress on Recommendations, Master of Arts in Finance
The March 19, 2009 letter from the Commission approving the offering of the Master of Arts degree in
Finance asked the CPR team visiting CMC in the Fall of 2009 to review progress on five
recommendations. As stated in our September 16, 2008 Substantive Change Application, the
overarching goal of the Master of Arts Program is to produce leaders with strong analytical and
financial decision-making skills, well-developed communication skills, and high ethical standards. The
program builds on a liberal arts education, which provides exposure to different academic disciplines
and teaches students to think critically, solve problems, and communicate intelligently and
persuasively. In response to the letter from the Commission, The Robert Day School has prepared an
Addendum which addresses each of the recommendations, and includes a curricular grid that connects
the learning goals to the individual courses for the MA program as well as the co-curricular activities
which are an integral part of the year-long program. (Doc 02d. RDS Addendum Response to WASC
Approval 04-21-09) The grids for the program are posted on the College’s website and included in the
orientation material provided to entering students.
9 of 10